Posted by Tina
I read yet another article about the economy tonight that shows up the liberal progressive lie that the rich don’t pay their fair share in taxes:
“Rahn: Growing the economy for dummies,” by Richard W. Rahn, Washington Times:
Did you know that in Denmark, the poorest 30 percent pay 14.1 percent of all taxes and the richest pay 48.7 percent, while in the United States, the poorest 30 percent pay just 6.1 percent of all taxes and the richest 30 percent pay a whopping 65.3 percent? The surprising thing is not that the richest pay most of the taxes but that the U.S. has nearly the most progressive tax system in the world, while the Scandinavian countries have about the least progressive tax systems, contrary to commonly held belief.
I hope you’ll read the article. In addition to debunking the liberal line it references a couple of books you might want to read before the next election. It also briefly explains the major causes for the unsustainable mess we’re in and how to get America back on the right track. One thing’s was made very clear for me, when 65.3% of ALL TAXES in America are paid by the richest 30% of Americans, and another 28.6% of ALL TAXes are paid by 40% in the middle class, those Americans are all Taxed Enough Already! In case you missed it, that stands for T.E.A.!
How much money would be enough to satisfy this bunch of big government progressives?
Until I see members of the Democrat Party on this list, including Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, John Kerry, and Al Gore, giving up their expensive homes, boats, cars and furs, until I see them turning their massive wealth over to the treasury, I will not believe they are the least bit sincere. They are hucksters and liars. They are hypocrites! As far as I’m concerned they can just put a cork in it. I’m calling time out for the high rollers in DC who spend, waste, and misuse our hard earned money.
Tina, our readers just learned something very valuable from this article. Thanks for this find – I can only hope it will begin to sink in on those thick headed liberals that come here as hyper-partisans.
If we divided the income of the US into thirds, we find that the top ten percent of the population gets a third, the next thirty percent gets another third, and the bottom sixty percent get the last third. If we divide the wealth of the US into thirds, we find that the top one percent own a third, the next nine percent own another third, and the bottom ninety percent claim the rest. (Actually, these percentages, true a decade ago, are now out of date. The top one percent are now estimated to own between forty and fifty percent of the nation’s wealth, more than the combined wealth of the bottom 95%.)
Does this justify in any way, in your mind, why the rich SHOULD be paying most of the taxes?
As a follow up to what Joe said I found this article and I thought you might find it as interesting as I did:
Wealth, Income, and Power
by G. William Domhoff
September 2005 (updated July 2011)
This document presents details on the wealth and income distributions in the United States, and explains how we use these two distributions as power indicators.
Some of the information may come as a surprise to many people. In fact, I know it will be a surprise and then some, because of a recent study (Norton & Ariely, 2010) showing that most Americans (high income or low income, female or male, young or old, Republican or Democrat) have no idea just how concentrated the wealth distribution actually is. More on that a bit later.
As far as the income distribution, the most amazing numbers on income inequality will come last, showing the dramatic change in the ratio of the average CEO’s paycheck to that of the average factory worker over the past 40 years.
First, though, some definitions. Generally speaking, wealth is the value of everything a person or family owns, minus any debts. However, for purposes of studying the wealth distribution, economists define wealth in terms of marketable assets, such as real estate, stocks, and bonds, leaving aside consumer durables like cars and household items because they are not as readily converted into cash and are more valuable to their owners for use purposes than they are for resale (see Wolff, 2004, p. 4, for a full discussion of these issues). Once the value of all marketable assets is determined, then all debts, such as home mortgages and credit card debts, are subtracted, which yields a person’s net worth. In addition, economists use the concept of financial wealth — also referred to in this document as “non-home wealth” — which is defined as net worth minus net equity in owner-occupied housing. As Wolff (2004, p. 5) explains, “Financial wealth is a more ‘liquid’ concept than marketable wealth, since one’s home is difficult to convert into cash in the short term. It thus reflects the resources that may be immediately available for consumption or various forms of investments.”
We also need to distinguish wealth from income. Income is what people earn from work, but also from dividends, interest, and any rents or royalties that are paid to them on properties they own. In theory, those who own a great deal of wealth may or may not have high incomes, depending on the returns they receive from their wealth, but in reality those at the very top of the wealth distribution usually have the most income. (But it’s important to note that for the rich, most of that income does not come from “working”: in 2008, only 19% of the income reported by the 13,480 individuals or families making over $10 million came from wages and salaries. See Norris, 2010, for more details.)
This document focuses on the “Top 1%” as a whole because that’s been the traditional cut-off point for “the top” in academic studies, and because it’s easy for us to keep in mind that we are talking about one in a hundred. But it is also important to realize that the lower half of that top 1% has far less than those in the top half; in fact, both wealth and income are super-concentrated in the top 0.1%, which is just one in a thousand. To get an idea of the differences, take a look at an insider account by a long-time investment manager who works for the well-to-do and very rich. It nicely explains what the different levels have — and how they got it.
As you read through the facts and figures that follow, please keep in mind that they are usually two or three years out of date because it takes time for one set of experts to collect the basic information and make sure it is accurate, and then still more time for another set of experts to analyze it and write their reports. It’s also the case that the infamous housing bubble of the first eight years of the 21st century inflated some of the wealth numbers. The important point to keep in mind is that it’s the relative positions of wealth holders and income earners that we are trying to comprehend in this document. (To get some idea about absolute dollar amounts, read the investment manager’s insider account that was mentioned in the previous paragraph.)
So far there are only tentative projections — based on the price of housing and stock in July 2009 — on the effects of the Great Recession on the wealth distribution. They suggest that average Americans have been hit much harder than wealthy Americans. Edward Wolff, the economist we draw upon the most in this document, concludes that there has been an “astounding” 36.1% drop in the wealth (marketable assets) of the median household since the peak of the housing bubble in 2007. By contrast, the wealth of the top 1% of households dropped by far less: just 11.1%. So as of April 2010, it looks like the wealth distribution is even more unequal than it was in 2007. (See Wolff, 2010 for more details.)
One final general point before turning to the specifics. People who have looked at this document in the past often asked whether progressive taxation reduces some of the income inequality that exists before taxes are paid. The answer: not by much, if we count all of the taxes that people pay, from sales taxes to property taxes to payroll taxes (in other words, not just income taxes). And the top 1% of income earners actually pay a smaller percentage of their incomes to taxes than the 9% just below them. These findings are discussed in detail near the end of this document.
The Wealth Distribution. . . In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one’s home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%. Table 1 and Figure 1 present further details drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2010).
Read more at http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
Re Joe Shaw: If we divided the income … blah, blah, blah …Does this justify in any way, in your mind, why the rich SHOULD be paying most of the taxes?
No one is saying that the rich should not pay taxes or even the majority of them. At a flat tax rate they would still be paying the majority of taxes.
Joe Shaw, so typical of liberals, completely misses the point and tries to spin into something it is not (and as usual into utter nonsense).
1) This country could confiscate the entire wealth of the this year’s top earners and it would ALL be spent in a year. (See the excellent post on this in Post Scripts this made last month.)
2) It is about Taxed Enough Already. Taxed enough already at all levels, including the wealthy. It is about reigning in the insane spending and gigantic debt of the federal government. It is about being responsible.
Jack and Joe bring up exactly what I was thinking while reading this article, Tina. Denmark has the lowest income inequality of any country in the world, whereas the U.S. has a rather large amount of income inequality, even more than countries like Pakistan.
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/05/04/163476/us-unequal-uganda-pakistan/
Of course the wealthy in the U.S. are going to have to pay a bigger share of their country’s tax burden than their counterparts in Denmark; they own a bigger percentage of their country’s wealth.
John Stewart had a particularly insightful episode about this topic the other day:
http://www.hulu.com/watch/269517/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-thu-aug-18-2011
Quentin, it’s fair to compare our policies to those of other countries, but a lot of context is necessary to make accurate comparisons. I’m glad Denmark was brought up, we would do well to emulate many (not all, but many) of their policies.
To put it simply, the bottom 30% of Danes pay more than the bottom 30% of Americans because the Danes can afford it and Americans can’t.
This article, as I understand it, seems to be making my point. In 3rd world countries a small percentage of the population owns a large percentage of the wealth. Seems to me, going by the percentages alone, we are just about there. I’m sorry, but I just can’t get too upset over the idea that the wealthiest 20% pay half the taxes….they own 85% of the wealth! Now before your hackmen Toby and Pie go off on me accusing me of saying things I am not saying, let me say this….Although I believe the rich should pay more taxes, I also believe the working middle class are already over taxed and should pay less. The government collects enough money as it is and we really do need to change our spending habits. But doesn’t it make more sense to start with the military when we read stories of tens of billions of our money disappearing in foreign wars? We can still maintain the strongest military force on earth while fixing some of the obvious problems. BTW, after an EDD audit a couple of years ago, I am left owing the state (according to them) more money than I will ever be able to pay back in a lifetime, and they are and will continue to be right on my ass about it until I pay, which I could never do short of winning the lottery. But how many heads do you think will roll from the 60 billion missing in the wars? How many will be fired or go to jail? That’s right, not one. And I’m supposed to respect our government? Anyway, my point is, we can fix things without gutting education and hurting senior citizens. Force the military into a common sense budget, escalate the tax tables on the rich and super rich starting at 250k on up, get our asses out of Irag and Afghanistan, curb our rediculous foreign aid payments, allow other countries to take responsibility for their own protection, don’t let teenagers and young adults start collecting social security for life because they they have ADD or they’re an alchoholic, do something about the price of prescription drugs (like allowing competition from foreign markets) and yes, tort reform! Ease up on regulations so that businesses can be free to produce (thinking of the solar panel business that went belly up because of Chineese competition and God-knows-what kind of domestic regulations), allow tax credits to families putting a kid through college so we can remain strong in education, fix the boarders….well, I’m sure you have your list too. But sadly, unless we change our relation of money to politics, most of these things will never happen. My whole point is, we can be strong economically AND less taxed, if we could just start using some common sense.
Joe: “If we divided the income of the US into thirds, we find that the top ten percent of the population gets a third, the next thirty percent gets another third, and the bottom sixty percent get the last third.”
Woah…this one statement tells me a lot about the way you think Joe. Apparently you believe that Americans are subjects who are, or should be, denied property rights and possibly the freedom to pursue happiness.
The US doesn’t have an “income”. The government has revenue but only because it takes money from the people through taxation. We don’t “divide up” wealth. We can earn it, inherit it, and create it but we don’t sit around waiting for a fair share to be somehow magically doled out from on high. the image I get is of our citizens standing in line for a crust of bread…ick!
“If we divide the wealth of the US into thirds, we find that the top one percent own a third, the next nine percent own another third, and the bottom ninety percent claim the rest.”
Once again the US doesn’t have wealth to be divided and handed out in portions. If there is disparity it comes from a difference in effort, savings, investment, education, hours invested and luck.
Before we can even beging to discuss this and make any sense at all I need to know that you support the American notion of private property. If you don’t there is no sense in discussing it further.
The article you posted poses a problem for the same reason. The author thinks in terms of fairness, distribution, and “share” of wealth. These terms should be foreign to any American who cares about preserving our republic and the rule of law. We live in a free country. The right to own property is a key element of our society. The right to pursue happiness, which includes making money, accumulating wealth, is also a key element in our society.
The key to greater nbalance does not lie in higher taxation; the key lies in creating greater opportunity for our citizens. to me that means first of all we must do a better job in educating young people to be responsible for themselves, to work hard in school, to compete in the marketplace. it includes writing laws that encourage people to work and save and create a better future for themselvves. I want the less fortunate to have the opportunity to write their own success and future. I want every american to do well. I want a society that ultimately doesn’t need a welfare program because the people have been taught the values that give them the tools to do well in life.
Taxation in our country has become a redistribution game. Instead of a nation of people who work and build futures for themselves and their families we are becoming a nation of serfs and beggars. Every American should participate in funding the government and the government should be a good manager of the people’s money. It shpould be responsible only for those things that the people cannot do for themselves. In a free nation people should be able to pursue wealth to whatever degree they choose. Some prefer to amass great fortunes but many are satified with far less. Equality of outcome has never been the aim under our Constitution.
Within this context the current tax structure is greatly flawed. The idea that any person should give up half of what he earns to government is, IMHO, absurd.
The only reason that we are having this conversation is because government has gotten too big and is performing too many services that individual people should be doing for themselves. The very programs that were designed to help people have actually caused them to become less capable, less productive, less free, less educated and skilled, and more inclined toward harmful, costly addictions and crime which then require even more revenue…cash taken from citizens. The sick thing about this is that America became the richest nation on the planet after WWII. the sixties/seventies generation squandered the opportunity that was afforded by creating an entitlement mentality and b y destroying our educational system. Americans are no longer capable of thinking or caring for themselves…and they certainly don’t have enough education and information about how to succeed in life.
“I just can’t get too upset over the idea that the wealthiest 20% pay half the taxes”
Joe, I’m not upset that they pay…I’m upset that the left keeps saying they aren’t paying a “fair share”.
I’m upset that the left recklessly spends (often to buy votes) and wastes tax money and then comes back and says the rich will just have to bend over and cough up more.
I’m upset because the truth is they might indeed tax the rich more but they will also tax the rest of us more, they just won’t talk about it.
IT’S TIME OUR REPRESENTATIVES IN WASHINGTON WERE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR WASTEFUL SPENDTHRIFT WAYS. ITS TIME THEY BECAME BETTER STEWARDS OF OUR MONEY. ITS TIME THEY MADE LAWs THAT ARE SUPPORTIVE OF ALL AMERICANS.
Joe my apologies…that article was posted by Jack…but the considerations I expressed still apply.
Hi Joe…Jack here. I just thought you might find the article interesting. I understand the article and I’m weighing what was said, but I still haven’t formulated an opinion on it one way or the other. (I’m thinking it over)
However, my long held position to taxation in general is that, it should ONLY be used to fund limited Constitutional government. It should not be used to do social engineering, create a welfare class that are kept prisoner for generations and it should absolutely NOT add too much onto the backs of employers, so that they are crippled by the tax burden and can’t compete in the world market.
I SURE DON’T want big taxes and big gov. to chase companies out of America! I want us to keep good, clean jobs here and I want our economy to thrive from the bottom rung to the top. No easy task!
That’s a good point too Chris. We must look at the income levels of those bottom 30% and not just think of them as percentages of a given population. We want to compare apples to apples. So we agree, Jack
IT’S TIME OUR REPRESENTATIVES IN WASHINGTON WERE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR WASTEFUL SPENDTHRIFT WAYS. ITS TIME THEY BECAME BETTER STEWARDS OF OUR MONEY. ITS TIME THEY MADE LAWs THAT ARE SUPPORTIVE OF ALL AMERICANS. T.G.
Amen! (jack)
“Taxed enough already at all levels, including the wealthy. It is about reigning in the insane spending and gigantic debt of the federal government. It is about being responsible.” P.G.
Double amen!! (jack)
“Did you know, that talking about Denmark has NOTHING to do with American tax rates?” Quentin, I have to side with Chris. It is very important to show such comparisons, but it also has to be done with a lot of context…so we’re really comparing apples to apples, as a I said earlier.
Chris and I must disagree with you on this point.
Chris: “John Stewart had a particularly insightful episode about this topic the other day”
John Stewarts standup routine was mildly insightful but also selective and inadequate in terms of serious tax policy discussion.
I was only willing to watch a couple of minutes…sorry the man is not really intersted in educating and informing his audience…he’s in it for the laughs alone.
Anyway, in the short portion I watched I discovered that the rate on dividend income is considered a “loophole” for wealthy people by this guy. (and the left in general)
This moronic view leaves out the fact that many seniors rely on dividends to supplement their retirment income. There are a lot more of them than there are Warren Buffet types. It also leaves out the fact that the small return on that investment doesn’t usually compare with employment income. My Mom made a few thousand dollars on her stocks in a few of the years she was invested. Taxing her at a higher rate just to get warren Buffet would have been criminal. and finally, it leaves out the fact that these investments are supportive of the overall economy which translates to job opportunity for Americans. We want to encourage this kind of private sector investment…not discourage it.
“To put it simply, the bottom 30% of Danes pay more than the bottom 30% of Americans because the Danes can afford it and Americans can’t.”
We’ve made sure they can’t with social programs, the break up of the family, redistribution polices, and failing school systems. We have failed to uphold the values that made it possible for anyone with enough desire and ambition to make whatever life he desired a reality. And we have let those who represent us in DC get away with creating big wasteful bureaucratic departments that fail to deliver value and put Americans in debt.
It has to stop! This administration had the warewithall to say that spending under GWB was unpatriotic for its wildly inflated deficits and debt. He then promptly trippled down on that spending. Now he insists we just are supposed to just swallow it and pay up? I don’t think so. Taxes should not be raised on anyone until the Congress and the President demonstrate (without tricks) that they are willing to make severe cuts and consolodations in government.
When certain constituents howl he vcan ask them what they are going to do privately within their own communities to fix problems. There is a lot of work to do in many areas of our society and the best place to truly make a difference is with hands on, one on one, service within the community.
Re Joe Shaw’s: “Now before your hackmen Toby and Pie go off on me accusing me of saying things I am not saying …”
I have never put words into Joe Shaw’s mouth, not once. I have only reflected them, and in context. Recently Joe followed Quentin Colgan with a crass insult, I stuffed that insult back in his face. Sometimes Joe leads with a crass insult. I stuff that back into his face too.
And I will continue to do so.
Of course, Joe does not like that. And it has shut him up, on occasion. I has never been my intent to shut Joe up although he has said as much for me.
Funny how that works.
Talk about misrepresentation! I am not a Post Scripts “hackman”. My comments are my own and I appear here only out of the graciousness of the blog owners whom I have never even met. Just like you do, Joe.
From time to time I suggest a blog entry in the comments section and sometimes Post Scripts graciously runs it as a blog post. Often they credit me, sometimes they do not. No, problem, it works for me. This is their blog, not mine, and I am happy to contribute my two bits every now and then whether credited or not.
Re Joe Shaw’s: “I also believe the working middle class are already over taxed and should pay less.”
Yep, we are on the same page there.
Re Joe Shaw’s: “But doesn’t it make more sense to start with the military when we read stories of tens of billions of our money disappearing in foreign wars?”
Nope. It doesn’t need to start there, but such should be included in a comprehensive plan.
Re Joe Shaw’s: “We can still maintain the strongest military force on earth while fixing some of the obvious problems.”
Agreed.
What Joe Shaw (perhaps conveniently) does not mention is the single largest drain on Government funds — Entitlements.
Social Security, MediCare, MediAid, and now the ridiculous Health Care bill.
These programs must be restructured, waste and fraud removed, and given effective oversight and prosecution of malfeasance if we are to ever get out of the ever increasing spiral of debt.
But every time a reasonable proposal is made by Republicans, Joe Shaw and his peers scream bloody murder and resort to ad hominem attack.
Oh yeah, loads of common sense there.
So it goes.
Re Chris: “To put it simply, the bottom 30% of Danes pay more than the bottom 30% of Americans because the Danes can afford it and Americans can’t.”
Oh, really? Based on what?
Sheesh, is that a stretch or what? Tilting at windmills.
So it isn’t just that the American tax code is written to give poor Americans a better break than poor Danes?
Tina: “We’ve made sure they can’t with social programs, the break up of the family, redistribution polices, and failing school systems.”
Tina, how does it make sense to blame American “social programs” and “redistribution policies” for the U.S. having more income inequality than Denmark, when Denmark has far stronger social programs?
Pie: “Oh, really? Based on what?”
Based on the fact that the poor in Denmark are better off economically than the poor in the U.S.
“If we divided the income of the US into thirds, we find that the top ten percent of the population gets a third, the next thirty percent gets another third, and the bottom sixty percent get the last third.”
Tina, those were not my words, I got them from a web site. If they were my words I would have used the word “earns” in place of the word “gets”. Does that change anything for you? When you ask me if I believe in the right to own personal property I have to wonder….Do you think every liberal is a communist? Yes I believe in the right to own personal property and that people have a right to be rich. This whole “distribution of wealth” thing is not a liberal agenda. Those words were made up by some conservative think tank to confuse and misdirect conservatives into believing something that is not true, in effect, using well meaning conservatives as pawns to fight for the wealthy.
Jack….I agree
Pie….you are a feisty critter aren’t you? I respect that cause I’m a bit feisty myself. But you, as well as Tina sometimes, often make the mistake of assuming I’m saying something I’m not saying, or at least adding your slant to what I said that basically changes the tone of what I said. It’s a common thing that conservatives do with liberals because they tend to lump us altogether and it’s never that simple. That old guy that you assumed I was complimenting as a set up to insult him, you couldn’t have been more wrong. I honestly do have the utmost respect for anybody who serves in the military. Anybody who is willing to die for others is the noblest of the noble. Try not to confuse any of my criticisms of our government or the military with my respect for those who serve. Yes, I said he was probably watching too much Fox news because those same over tones I hear on Fox were in his letter. To say that our country has well served those who served their country is not a hit on military personel, it’s just an observation.
Chris: “Tina, how does it make sense to blame American “social programs” and “redistribution policies” for the U.S. having more income inequality than Denmark, when Denmark has far stronger social programs?”
I didn’t blame social programs & redistribution for income inequality. I blame them for contributing to beliefs and attitudes that keep too many in the underclass permanently down.
From my perspective the notion of income inequality is bogus to begin. I don’t want to be a billionaire. It comes with a lot of responsibility that I just don’t want. Likewise I don’t want to be poor. I need a certaion amount of security and I have creature comforts that I’d like to be able to continue to afford. The point is that we all have different ideas about money and lifestyle. In America people can become anything they choose if they have the right attitude and are willing to work for it. Now I admit if your dream is to be a billionaire you have your work cut out for you but even if you fall short your life will still be a success.
As far as social programs in Denmark go, if the poor have to pay as much as they do to keep it going it must be costing the Danish dearly. Better off is in they eye of the beholder which is why the one size fits all, top down big government redistribution idea just doesn’t fit…and it’s so wasteful. It can take anywhere from 35 to 75 cents on the dollar to administer redistribution programs…but as long as we don’t have to pay for it…as long as we can get others to pay for it…who cares! (Truth is you are paying for it…or will be very shortly even if you take all the money you can squeeze from the rich)
“It should not be used to do social engineering, create a welfare class that are kept prisoner for generations ….”
I’m sorry. But it’s only people who don’t want to pony up … period … who come out with this horsepucky.
Because, in consequence of the welfare state, folk who have the intellectual wherewithall to get out … do get out. And them as don’t … don’t.
But those of us who, as long as we do, out-number the selfish and venal among us … will continue to fund this welfare state.
And aren’t you ashamed?
I didn’t think so.
Joe: “I would have used the word “earns” in place of the word “gets”…”
That clears up your position significantly.
“I have to wonder….Do you think every liberal is a communist? Yes I believe in the right to own personal property and that people have a right to be rich. This whole “distribution of wealth” thing is not a liberal agenda.”
I can honestly say I don’t think every person who calls himself liberal is a communist but I do think that the Democrat Party is controlled by a cadre of communists/socialist who want to “fundamentally transform” America. They use words like social justice, redistribution of wealth, and economic justice liberally and they mean to end or grossly curtail capitalism and install a socialist government through regulation, taxation and the legal system:
Communist Party and Socialist Party leaders established the Democratic Socialists of America:
http://www.dsausa.org/dsa.html
They share a common ideology which is now the platform of todays DNC CPUSA (Communist Party USA)
There are the two congressional bodies in control of congress.
The Congressional Progressive Caucus established by Socialist Party member Bernie Sanders of Vermont
Homepage: http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/
Members: http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=71§iontree=2,71
The Congressional Black Caucus established by Communist Party member John Conyers of Michigan.
Homepage: http://thecongressionalblackcaucus.lee.house.gov/
Members: http://www.house.gov/cleaver/cbc/members.html
ALL members of these two congressional committees represent the Democratic Socialists of America, as both committees are the creation of, and operate under the control of DSAUSA. (Democrat Socialists of America).
DSAUSA Platform:
http://www.dsausa.org/pdf/widemsoc.pdf
How nice for them. The problem is I don’t share that vision and what bothers me is that in our free society they can create communes and organizations to “share the unappealing tasks without forcing everyone to live that way through government. But if they win and I lose my preference, to own my own business and engage in commerce free of all but basic necessary regulation will become impossible.
Another thing that bothers me is the idea that in America today we “distribute (work) on the basis of class, race, ethnicity, or gender”. That is patently absurd. Have these people never heard of Berry Gordy, Oprah Winfrey, Clarence Thomas, Herman Cain, Magic Johnson, or how about this guy:
Are they aware of the Black Chamber of Commerce? a quick perusal their website would show that black men and women can be all they want to be now…they don’t have to wait for the government to create opportunities for them.
What bothers me is that these socialists are selling their ideas on the fabrication that there is no oppoortunity for people of color in America and it just is not true. The evidence is all around us.
“Those words were made up by some conservative think tank to confuse and misdirect conservatives into believing something that is not true, in effect, using well meaning conservatives as pawns to fight for the wealthy.”
Joe I’m afraid it is you who is being used as a pawn. Clearly, as the above cited webpages show, a conservative think tank didn’t just make up those words, or ideas.
“Yes, I said he was probably watching too much Fox news because those same over tones I hear on Fox were in his letter.”
This wasn’t addressed to me but I’d like to respond to it as long as I’m here. Is it possible for you to give the gentleman a little respect concerning his positions. You seem to assume that people who watch FOX only think as they do because they watch FOX, as if they held no positions until a few years back when FOX came into being. That’s a little arrogant don’t you think? Also on those occassions when I watch FOX I see Democrats expressing their views…so what is the negative wrap all about really…that FOX dares to include some programming that you would never see on the four old alphabet channels? If so why isn’t that a good thing?
Libby: ” But it’s only people who don’t want to pony up … period … who come out with this horsepucky.”
I used to think you were capable of honest discussion.
“But those of us who, as long as we do, out-number the selfish and venal among us … will continue to fund this welfare state. And aren’t you ashamed?”
Why should I be ashamed? I pay my taxes?
Aren’t you ashamed at the numbers of black men in prison, on drugs?
You can deny that the laws that made being married a detriment to receiving aid weren’t constructed by social progressive types but it would be a big fat lie.
You can pretend that generations of people stuck in the welfare system is simply due to their stupidity or lack of desire but (bigoted) you would be wrong.
You can pretend that bad schools in crumbling neighborhoods are not part of the problem and that this has long been ignored by liberal elites but you would be wrong.
Liberal progressives NEED poor people to stay exactly whaere they are so they can justify the need for HIGHER TAXES.
You lack vision, creativity, and any real desire to see people successful. You tear down the successful to hold down the less fortunate. You refuse to use tax money in a way that would improve the abilities of future generations. Unions of people by group are formed to force conformity and agreement.
Pathetic!
Tina: “I didn’t blame social programs & redistribution for income inequality. I blame them for contributing to beliefs and attitudes that keep too many in the underclass permanently down.”
But if our social programs really are the culprit for these ills, shouldn’t we be seeing even worse negative effects in countries like Denmark and Sweden, which have much stronger social welfare systems?
Since that’s not happening, isn’t it time to consider that social programs are not the problem?
“From my perspective the notion of income inequality is bogus to begin”
Well, that puts you in a very small minority of Americans. According to this study on how people thought about income inequality, “All demographic groups-even those not usually associated with wealth redistribution such as Republicans and the wealthy-desired a more
equal distribution of wealth than the status quo.”
http://www.people.hbs.edu/mnorton/norton%20ariely%20in%20press.pdf
92% of the respondents favored the income inequality level of Sweden over that of America.
Income inequality is a huge problem in our country. If you can’t acknowledge this basic fact, you cannot hope to make any reasonable or fair suggestions about anything related to our economy. Whether it’s how much we should tax people or what we should spend that tax money on, if you’re poo-pooing income inequality as something that doesn’t matter, then you clearly don’t understand the issues.
Another important fact relating to income inequality: the ratio of corporate profits to wages is now higher than it’s been since right before the Great Depression.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/sep/01/robert-reich/robert-reich-says-ratio-corporate-profits-wages-hi/
Tina, your political ideology says that when the rich succeed, America succeeds. You claim that corporations are burdened by too much regulation and taxation, and that because of this they just don’t have the ability to hire as much, or to spend as much money, which otherwise would trickle down to the rest of us. This was enshrined as gospel during the Reagan years, though lost a lot of credibility during the Clinton boom. Now that we’re in a recession, this ideology is making an aggressive comeback among conservatives.
But it’s not true.
Those poor, over-regulated, over-taxed corporations are raking in more dough than ever, and paying less taxes than ever, during this allegedly socialist regime. So why is nothing trickling down upon the rest of us? Why are the poor making less and less while the rich are making more and more? Reaganomics says this is practically impossible. It says that when corporate America wins, we all win. Well, right now corporate America is winning big, and they’re the ONLY ONES making out like this. So how do you explain that?
Chris: “But if our social programs really are the culprit for these ills, shouldn’t we be seeing even worse negative effects in countries like Denmark and Sweden, which have much stronger social welfare systems?”
What makes you think that in Denmark, for instance, there aren’t some negative effects?
I found one article that made a fairly thorough comparison of Denmark and the US. It was done a few years back so the stats at the end of the article have probably changed some but the article generally holds true.
Denmark and the US are very different in many ways, size and population, diversity, and other factors enter in so an apples to apples comparison is difficult to make. The article lists pros and cons of the Danish system; I excerpted the things that address your question
http://www.usatoday.com/money/world/2007-03-06-denmark-usat_N.htm
Danes can be fired at any time, unemployment benefits are 90% of pay but they have to accept jobs at the governments say so and their benefits run out once they collect four years worth of unemployment benefits.
Freedom and choice are definitely curtailed in the Danish system. The people sound like perpetual children to me with government, and the few who run companies, playing Mom and Dad. It will be interesting to watch what happens in the years to come. Their little country is no longer as homogeneous as it once was.
In a way the two countries reflect the battle going on here in America between those who think the individual, the family, and personal responsiblity provide the bedrock of our nation and those who desire a more communal system with the state carrying the burden of responsiblility.
“…isn’t it time to consider that social programs are not the problem?”
No, I don’t think so. I’m not saying welfare is the only thing that contributes to persistant poverty but it is one of the major factors because of the way it was initially structured. Our welfare system doesn’t encourage people to learn or work. It also pays more if you are unmarried with a lot of kids. We could adopt some of their ideas and possibly improve our system but I’m not sure it would work to change things. The attitude of the Danes seems to be let someone else take care of them including making decisions about what job they have.
Frankly, it gives me the creeps.
“Well, that puts you in a very small minority of Americans.”
LOL…what I meant to say is that I find the idea that income inequality is something we should manage with government redistribution, taxation, and manipulation. That’s what is bogus. The term is misleading as if some hidden entity has been playing scrooge and holding people back. I don’t think that’s what happened. I hope you will take the time to read, or at least skim through, this report from CATO:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa640.pdf
Cato puts what is happening into crystal clear focus and also offers information that will make you realize that income isn’t the best way to measure the quality of life.
I come from the point of view that human beings are capable of extraordiary achievement if they are encouraged to mature, to be responsible, to be able think for themselves and to stand on their own two feet. I beleive that our strengths will outweigh our weaknesses if we are encoured to be strong as individuals. Conversely, I think that people who grow up counting on others (government/taxpayers) for basic needs and services develope a lazy, sluggish, or defeatest attitude of dependence. Generation after generation of that creates a weaker, less motivated and creative society that also often falls into addictions and crime.
“Income inequality” is not a huge problem; it is a condition that has been interpreted narrowly and exploited politically. In terms of life experience, satisfaction and quality of life the so-called income gap is a lot less troubling than it’s been made to seem. One example is that the very wealthy pay a lot more for their big expensive houses and cars, they also have to pay more for maintenance, upkeep and insurances and they have to work harder to maintain that lifestyle. Someone earning a lot less with a modest home who drives a low mileage KIA may be just as satisfied with his life even though the income gap is extraordinary.
You might also find this from CATO interesting:
Q: “…Republicans make up misleading statistics to “prove” that the America’s fiscal burden is being borne by the rich…”
The statistics cited are from a book by Richard Rahn of the CATO Institute, a Libertarian think tank. See his extensive profile here:
http://www.cato.org/people/richard-rahn
“they point to the top corporate income rate of 35 percent as being confiscatory Bolshevism. But again, the effective rate is much lower. Did GE pay 35 percent on 2010 profits of $14 billion? No, it paid zero.”
What a dumb argument. GE does not represent the majority of corporations. GE used the tax code to determine it’s tax due. If there is a problem it is with the tax code. The rate is high compared to other countries and that FACT makes American companies less competitive in the world.
I’ll bet that whatever tax bracket you are in there have been a few years when your tax due didn’t reflect your tax rate rate…didn’t you go ahead and take those exemption like homeowners exemption, medical deductions, donations to charity? Common…fess up…you take advantage of the loop holes!!!
“…and the rest of us are just freeloaders who don’t appreciate that fact.”
No one says “the rest of us are freeloaders”…you made that up.
We do say progressive activist voices use this “tax the rich” slogan to incite anger and garner support for big nanny state government and the higher taxes to pay for it. It’s an appeal to the darker side of human nature…to the covetously greedy side!
If government were a good investment it might be different but as it is I don’t see anyone in any tax group asking for higher tax rates…except Buffet…but he’s shown himself to be exactly what you say you hate, a man in bed with government…a corporatist!
“There are millions of people who don’t pay income taxes, but do contribute payroll taxes…”
The burden is very slight, Quentin, as the article stated:
If you include federal taxes, payroll taxes, gas taxes and whatever other taxes may apply 30% of Americans pay only 6.1% of all of them. None of them are likely to create wealth or create jobs, however, with a business friendly climate, the wealthy and middle classes could create wealth and a lot of opportunity for the poor to move out of the lower class and into the middle classes or higher.
“…according to GOP fiscal theology, payroll taxes don’t count…”
NO!!! That is the rhetoric of jerks like you who don’t get it and lie about conservatives policy because they (you) want BIG GOVERNMENT AND BECAUSE THEY (you) WANT DEMOCRATS TO CONTROL POLICY.
“Somehow, they have convinced themselves that since payroll taxes go into trust funds, they’re not real taxes.”
Payroll taxes go into trust funds? Your kidding right? Mostly they go to pay current recipients and debt and unless we reform the system soon, it will collapse. They made promises that couldn’t be kept in the long run.
“Likewise, state and local sales taxes apparently don’t count…”
Like I said 6.1% f ALL taxes. Quentin they pay almost nothing. And some get to take advantage of the earned income tax credit (loop hole):
http://www.irs.gov/individuals/article/0,,id=96466,00.html
Quentin the poor in this country are doing much better than the poor in other countries. They can avail themselves of countless programs and during the school year, free meals and education for their kids. With hard work and discipline many people have lifted themselves out of poverty but it’s easier when we have a vibrant economy. You won’t get that with hostile tax and regulation policies from government.
This administration has been a disaster in that regard. Taxes and regs coming out of the EPA and written into the healthcare bill are punishing and unpredictable.
It’s not working well for any of us.
Millionaires have money…get over it.