Posted by Tina
Congressman Paul Ryan, Republican-Wisconsin, gave a speech last night at the Claremont Institute’s annual Churchill Dinner. His words reflected the clear headed honesty that has become a trademark of his style as he spoke of history and what it can teach us as we face dire economic challenges.
John Hinderaker of Powerline has the full text of the speech for those interested. I was struck by this revelation:
It’s certainly true that, if we allow taxes in this country to go as high as they would need to go to sustain the President’s expansive vision of government, it would cripple economic growth and end up moving us backwards from a fiscal standpoint.
I actually wrote a letter to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office asking them what kind of tax rates my kids and their generation would have to pay when they’re my age to finance the government’s current spending promises.
The CBO was quite clear: The bottom tax bracket, which is now 10 percent, would have to rise to 25 percent. The middle rate would have to rise to 63 percent. And the top rate, the rate many small businesses pay, would rise to 88 percent. Then, in the next sentence, they deadpanned, “This could have some negative effects on the economy at that time.” (emphasis mine)
Ryan has written a good plan, A Roadmap for America’s Future. It’s a serious plan that would ensure future generations a fate free of draconian tax rates and filled with opportunity that only private sector innovation and investment can create.
Tina: “His words reflected the clear headed honesty that has become a trademark of his style…”
Well, I spotted one big lie from Ryan right off the bat. He claims that “many small businesses pay” at the top tax rate, which just isn’t true. Less than 2% of small businesses are taxed at the two highest rates. That is not “many” by any reasonable definition.
“Small businesses” have been used as a political tool by the right during the past few years, and it’s extraordinarily dishonest.
Also keep in mind that Paul Ryan’s own budget proposal was rated terribly by the CBO, which found that it would increase costs on the poor and elderly, increase the deficit, and limit healthcare options.
Chris: “I spotted one big lie from Ryan right off the bat. He claims that “many small businesses pay” at the top tax rate, which just isn’t true. Less than 2% of small businesses are taxed at the two highest rates. That is not “many” by any reasonable definition.”
I don’t know how that 2% was calculated. But I do know that small business makes up a sizable number of individuals and I can assure you it is significant to them! Small business is defined, I believe, by firms with 500 or fewer employees. Small businesses without any employees were numbered at 21.3 million :
http://www.census.gov/econ/smallbus.html
, for example, most reports from the Economic Census.
Nonemployer firms represent 21,351,320 people/families
I don’t think you can call what Ryan said a lie but I suppose if you can, with such a cavalier attitude, dismiss over 21 million people you can consider it a lie.
“”Small businesses” have been used as a political tool by the right during the past few years, and it’s extraordinarily dishonest.”
Small businesses, and the nonunion middle class in general, has been kicked in the stomach and shoved into the dumper by Democrats for the past few decades. They do this while pretending to be for the little guy…HA! This is not only dishonest…it’s downright cruel.
I don’t know where you got the information to support your assertion on CBO’s analysis. Readers can find CBO’s analysis for themselves here:
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12128
It includes a caveat in the form of a letter written to Paul Ryan after he questioned their statements about his proposal:
Readers can evaluate the plan here (PDF file):
http://budget.house.gov/UploadedFiles/PathToProsperityFY2012.pdf
I think I know where that 2% figure comes from the fast draw kid who is so always so quick on the “liar” song-and-dance personal attack but I won’t say. It wouldn’t be G-rated.
Corporate Income Tax Rates from 2005 – 2011 were
Taxable income over Not over Tax rate
$ 0 $ 50,000 15%
50,000 75,000 25%
75,000 100,000 34%
100,000 335,000 39%
335,000 10,000,000 34%
10,000,000 15,000,000 35%
15,000,000 18,333,333 38%
18,333,333 ………. 35%
So, what constitutes a “small business” eh? Take a gander at the rates. In what bracket(s) is that “less than 2% of small businesses are taxed at the two highest rates” and what real value does that innocuous statement have given the actual rates paid?
(That was one of those rhetorical questions which even an idiot can can figure out, but I will answer it anyway: The statement has no value.”)
I would say taking over 1/3 of anyone’s income is legalized highway robbery, small business or not. But hey, maybe that is just me.
LASTLY: As those who are not deaf dumb, blind, and brain dead know, business does not pay tax, business collects tax. But if a business must compete in the same global arena with another business that manages to pay less tax, guess who people who buy products or services of similar quality will go to?
Duh.
Here is one place you can get these sort of figures —
http://www.smbiz.com/sbrl001.html
Tina:
“I don’t know how that 2% was calculated.”
There are many places online where you can find out. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has a pretty good analysis. Their conclusion:
“Despite claims to the contrary, the Presidents proposals concerning the top two income tax rates, limitations on itemized deductions and personal exemptions, and the carried interest tax break would affect only a very small fraction of small business owners. In fact, most small businesses would benefit substantially from proposals to provide tax cuts to lower- and middle-income tax payers in the form of the Making Work Pay tax credit and to reform the health care system.
Moreover, the proposals to roll back tax breaks for high-income taxpayers would address regressive, costly, and in some cases unwarranted tax expenditures. Given the nations serious long-term budget problems, tax expenditures of this sort must be on the table for reductions as part of efforts to restore fiscal responsibility.”
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2697
Tina: “But I do know that small business makes up a sizable number of individuals and I can assure you it is significant to them!…I don’t think you can call what Ryan said a lie but I suppose if you can, with such a cavalier attitude, dismiss over 21 million people you can consider it a lie.”
I never dismissed all small business owners, Tina, and I don’t see how you can reasonably accuse me of doing so. I simply pointed out the fact that the vast majority of these 21 million people will not see a tax increase under Obama, because most of them do not pay at the top tax rate, as Paul Ryan falsely claimed they did.
“Small businesses, and the nonunion middle class in general, has been kicked in the stomach and shoved into the dumper by Democrats for the past few decades.”
Most small business owners have benefited from Obama’s policies, as the CBPP points out above and as many other independent economists have concluded.
Pie Guevara:
“I would say taking over 1/3 of anyone’s income is legalized highway robbery, small business or not. But hey, maybe that is just me.”
But the government has historically “taken” far more than 1/3 from the richest Americans. Do you have any idea what the top tax rate was during WWII? Given your statements, I’m not sure you’d believe me if I told you, so I’ll let you find that information yourself. Sufficed to say, by your logic the U.S. government was committing “legalized highway robbery” to a FAR greater extent during the time of the “Greatest Generation” than they are currently, under the allegedly “socialist” President Obama.
Chris: “The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has a pretty good analysis.”
If you consider their main priority is to “consider the needs of low-income families” I’d say they are more interested in how much government can extract from business than they would be about how tax policy harms small business. And I’d say it makes them poorly qualified to speak to the conditions that plague small business owners, including tax policy. They wrote, “would affect only a very small fraction of small business owners” as if that evaluation meant something. If tax policy has the potential to punish over 2 million American businesses I’d say that is significant since small business hires a lot of Americans.
There’s other e3lements that figure into this punishing tax for small business. Many of them are independent contractors, realtors, low bid contractors and others whose income is not consistent from year to year. They depend on the high income years to make up for low income years. Government used to let those businesses income average but that was one of the loopholes that was closed when Republicans worked with Democrats to “get things done”. Promised cuts in spending never happened! Small business got screwed in the deal!
More from the CBPP: “…most small businesses would benefit substantially from proposals to provide tax cuts to lower- and middle-income tax payers in the form of the Making Work Pay tax credit and to reform the health care system.”
1. Why not just let them keep more money by lowering their rates…and then eliminate some of the big expensive government bureaucracy that collects the tax?
2. Healthcare costs are rising. The “reform” of the healthcare system is creating more expensive bureaucracy whiuch will require more government workers and more revenue to pay them to do esentially a bunch of busywork. And they will be paid grandly for it too!
“Most small business owners have benefited from Obama’s policies”
How have they benefited? They certainly haven’t benefited from an overall recovery. Maybe the CBPP never bothered to ask the many business owners that have not benefited. Manufacturing sure hasn’t. Construction hasn’t. Real estate and most private lending institutions have been decimated by democrat and Obama policies because they first caused the housing bubble/crash and then have failed to promote overall recovery. Handing big piles of cash to select groups doesn’t get it done…sorry that is the reality on the ground.
I must speak to your comments to Pie.
WWII was a very expensive war. Comparing that period, where entire infrastructures around the world were in shambles to anything happening today in order to justify higher tax rates is ridiculous. Take a look at regulation back then. Regulation compliance today costs business over a trllion dollars every year! After depression and a world war any improvement and opportunity was a blessing and because our infrastructure was unharmed we had the means and ability to produce! The whole of Europe was our market! Now policies discourage investment and production. We could lead the way again but not with government that is hostile to wealth production!
How easily you decide that it’s okay to seperate OTHER people from THEIR money! They have earned it through hard work, savings, sacrifice, and investment; it is their property! At what point would you begin to consider a tax rate excessive…tyranny? 80%…90%? And what would be the result in the private sector? Think!!!
I could support a completely voluntary and annonymous tax opportunity for all wealthy citizens who wanted to contribute to debt reduction. Historically taxes were originally voluntary and only the wealthy were expected to pay…that was back when freedom and property rights actually meant something!!!
President Obama is not the cause of much of the socialist policies that now find this nation on a fast track to destruction but he is a perfect figurehead or poster boy. It is his intention to grow the size of government and take from some citizens so he can redistribute it to others.
Obama, Pelosi, and Reid pushed through Obamacare without going through the normal processes in Congress using underhanded tactics (like bribery) and working behind closed doors. Pelosi told the Senate they would have to pass it to find out what was in it! If that isn’t a form of tyranny I don’t know what is. And it’s a clear indication that the rich don’t have enough wealth to satisfy this power hungry mob. They have no intention of cutting the size of government and one day that will require them to come for more of what you earn too…oh wait they already have:
http://www.atr.org/comprehensive-list-tax-hikes-obamacare-a5758
Starting in 2013 Medicare contributions rates will change. Instead of 1.45% of wages paid into Medicare you will pay 2.35% and your employer will too. The self-employed will pay 3.8% instead of 2.9%.
What was it Obama promised? Your taxes will not go up, your insurance will be less expensive and you can keep your insurance. Turns out none of those promises were true.
Here are two more of the special taxes included in Obamacare according to Americans for Tax Reform:
Wheelchairs that are suitable for younger disabled people (think veterans) can cost over $1000.00. It’s only one of many devices that the disabled need and need to replace over the course of their lives several times. This tax adds to the cost for the consumer. Nice going…make items more expensive for the disabled of all ages and seniors on fixed incomes.
They “tax the rich” out in the open because it’s so easy to sell people on the idea but they are coming after us all.
“I don’t know how that 2% was calculated. There are many places online where you can find out.”
Oh really? Not a one has been linked to. Not one. The operative phrase is “I don’t know”.
So, “I don’t know” why Paul Ryan is a liar. Yep, we have been here before. I do not know why I even bother, it took ONE SINGLE post from Chris to prove the rule.
Besides, that figure is meaningless compared to who pays what. It is really quite simple.
On tax rates I misspoke. Charging anyone more than 10% of their income is legalized highway robbery. Of course, as has been pointed out by the tax more spend more dorks of the Progressive Democrat Marxist Socialist party, that robbery has been going on for most of the 20th and now 21st century.
Congratulations.
Time for a change? You bet! Spend More/Debt More/Tax More is what you progressive rats are all about. Please keep working that angle on the next election cycle.
Pie: “Spend More/Debt More/Tax More is what you progressive rats are all about.”
This puts me in mind of OWS in New York. They want more from government and they want the rich to pay. (More likely to vote Dem) Consider the character and sense of responsibility of these people. They don’t care that they are creating a health risk; they don’t care that they are harming small businesses in the area; they don’t care that they will cost the citizens of New York a lot of money just to manage the mess and illegal activities their mob invites; they don’t care that Wall Street money is invested in such a way that it creates jobs and opportunities to obtain wealth for private citizens. They also don’t have a clue that progressive policy has brought us to this terrible place.
Instead of demanding that others work and pay for their needs why not exercize their right to pursue happiness and earn it themselves? Americans have a right to free speech but we also have a right to pursue happiness…which includes making money and conducting business activities.
The problem with these bums is they are spoiled rotten! This isn’t free its a infantile tantrum!
This moorning a court will decide whether the OWS bums have a right to stomp all over the rights of others. A court will decide whether they will be able to remain in the park over night and continue to create monetary hardship and health risks for business people and the citizens of the city. Who will win? Unfortunately the city demanded that the building owners create this park and failed to demand the same rules apply to it that apply to city parks. OWS has an edge.
The question for voters is are we willing to allow progressives to stomp all over the rights and freedoms our Constitution guarantees? This is NOT the time to raise tax rates…not if we want a vibrant economy again.
The Ryan plan would help put us on course to repair the damage and reduce our debt. It would offer business some certainty about the future. That’s more than I can say for the administrations failed policies.
I think you will get a kick out of this Tina —
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZo2hhvvlpw
I ran into Joe Friday giving Barak Obama The Big What For too. (There are a whole bunch of similar vids from bulletpeople, they are a scream!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXlu-hwPrrw
Tina: “If you consider their main priority is to “consider the needs of low-income families” I’d say they are more interested in how much government can extract from business”
Was it your intention to make focusing on the needs of low-income families sound somehow sinister? Because that’s certainly how this reads to me.
“than they would be about how tax policy harms small business.”
Tina, the Tax Policy Center is an extremely well-respected non-partisan institution that focuses on many economic issues, not just the needs of low-income families. In fact, I don’t even see that listed as their main focus on their about us page or anywhere else on the website. Where did you read that?
“And I’d say it makes them poorly qualified to speak to the conditions that plague small business owners, including tax policy.”
Even if their focus is on the needs of low income families, that doesn’t necessarily make them poorly qualified to address other issues of tax policy. This is a hugely influential institution, and you’re not making a compelling case against their credibility. Especially since you are often prone to citing the Heritage Foundation, which analyzes a lot of the same data as the Tax Policy Center, but does so with an inherent conservative bias. The non-partisan nature of the Tax Policy Center makes them much more reliable, in my opinion.
The Center is made up of experts who have served under the Reagan, Bush, and Clinton administrations.
Regardless, the 2% statistic has been reported often enough and by enough different institutions, including the CBO, that it should be common knowledge by now. You have not offered any counter-evidence to this statistic. You haven’t told me how many small businesses you believe fall into the two top tax rates. You’ve just questioned the credibility of my extremely credible source. If you don’t believe that less than 2% of small businesses pay at the highest tax rates, than how many small businesses do you think pay at these rates?
Until you can give me a better statistic from a better source, I see no reason not to believe the Tax Policy Center’s conclusion. And based on their conclusion, Paul Ryan’s statement was false.
“They wrote, “would affect only a very small fraction of small business owners” as if that evaluation meant something.”
Of course it means something. If a tax increase only affects the absolute richest small business owners–those who are taking in more than $250,000 a year after all their deductions (and, according to the Policy Center, most of that money is made from ventures other than their small businesses)–rather than a whole lot of small business owners, who don’t fall into those tax brackets, than that is important information to have in any debate on whether a tax increase should be enacted. I have a hard time imagining how anyone could disagree that this information is important to the debate.
“If tax policy has the potential to punish over 2 million American businesses I’d say that is significant since small business hires a lot of Americans.”
Now this, to me, reads like a meaningless statement. Yes, of course “tax policy,” as a general idea, has the “potential” to affect over 2 million American businesses. How that is significant to any of the proposals currently on the table is a mystery to me, since none of these specific proposals has that kind of potential. None of them would raise taxes on over 2 million small businesses, because very few small business owners fall into the top two tax brackets.
“There’s other e3lements that figure into this punishing tax for small business.”
Wait, now you’re talking about a specific tax? Which one? You’re being very unclear.
“How have they benefited?”
Through tax cuts, for one. Also hiring incentives, like Making Work Pay.
“WWII was a very expensive war. Comparing that period, where entire infrastructures around the world were in shambles to anything happening today in order to justify higher tax rates is ridiculous.”
Yes, it’s ridiculous to compare then, when entire infrastructures around the world were in shambles, to now, when entire infrastructures around the world are in shambles.
Tina, the crises in the world may not be as big as WWII but they are hugely significant, you’ve said so yourself. But you’ve usually used this fact to argue that raising taxes in such an unpredictable climate would only exacerbate any problems we are currently seeing. Now you seem to be saying that higher taxes can be justified in a time of crisis, which seems to go against everything you’ve ever written. Do you really think that the high taxation rates during WWII were justified due to the extreme circumstances? If so, how bad do you think things have to get before they would be justified again?
Also, keep in mind that the taxes during WWII were not all
that high by the standards of the decades before and after it. Today’s taxation rates, especially on the top two brackets, are extraordinarily low when judged against almost any year prior to 1988.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#History_of_top_rates
“How easily you decide that it’s okay to seperate OTHER people from THEIR money! They have earned it through hard work, savings, sacrifice, and investment; it is their property! At what point would you begin to consider a tax rate excessive…tyranny?”
As long as those making tax policy are elected by the people, it would never be “tyranny.” It might be bad policy, but it wouldn’t be tyranny.
“80%…90%?”
So were the richest Americans living under “tyranny” between 1942 and 1962, when they were paying this much, or weren’t they? You keep avoiding this question.
“And what would be the result in the private sector? Think!!!”
The result in the private sector was pretty good during the twenty years I mentioned. I don’t believe taxes should go up that much…all I’m asking for is a three percent increase on the top 2% of the richest Americans. This is not too much to ask! Especially considering that they are raking in record profits while the rest of us are suffering.
Even if you choose to inhabit an alternate history where the Great Depression failed, you can’t ignore the recent reports of rising income inequality and low social mobility of America compared to other, more progressive countries such as Sweden and Denmark. If your theory that raising taxes on the rich to increase benefits for the poor is such a disaster, then we should be seeing opposite results. But the fact is that the American dream, wherein people can move up and succeed regardless of their social class, has relocated to the Scandinavian countries, where government provides more services from the less fortunate and demands more from the more fortunate. This is just a fact, and it’s one Republicans have not addressed.
“I could support a completely voluntary and annonymous tax opportunity for all wealthy citizens who wanted to contribute to debt reduction.”
That would be a complete disaster.
“Historically taxes were originally voluntary and only the wealthy were expected to pay…that was back when freedom and property rights actually meant something!!!”
“Freedom” was not universally applied in America in the early 1900s, as you well know. And are you really arguing that mandatory taxation, in and of itself, demeans freedom and property rights to the point where they become meaningless? Because that is a pretty extreme argument.
I will have to respond more later.
Tina, I made a mistake in my last post, thinking you were referring to the Tax Policy Center when you were clearly referring to the CBPP.
That said, most of what I said about the former also applies to the latter.
There were also a ton of grammatical errors in my last post; that’ll teach me not to rush through a reply right before class. 😉
Chris: “Was it your intention to make focusing on the needs of low-income families sound somehow sinister?”
Not at all! I merely suggest their focus probably gives them little incentive to be concerned about small business people or to be knowledgable about their everyday concerns and challenges.
It’s at least no more sinister than focusing attention on so-called Wall Street greed when making money is the purpose of those who work on Wall Street. Making money isn’t a crime…at least not yet…any more than being poor is. In fact the one wealth maker ensures there is more opportunity for the hard working poor to improve their circumstances and to accumulate some wealth of their own over time.
“You haven’t told me how many small businesses you believe fall into the two top tax rates.”
http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Growthology/2010/0904/Just-how-many-small-business-owners-are-in-that-top-tax-bracket
Or maybe this will give you a better sense of what constitutes a small business:
http://www.fedaccess.com/what-is-small-business.htm
Who cares about a percentage…we are talking about real peoples lives and livlihoods, people who are responsible for creating the majority of jobs in the country!
Most of these people are not rich. They aren’t big tycoons of business. They are working stiffs out there every day providing the fuel that drives America’s engine.
“If a tax increase only affects the absolute richest small business owners–those who are taking in more than $250,000 a year after all their deductions…that is important information to have in any debate on whether a tax increase should be enacted. I have a hard time imagining how anyone could disagree that this information is important to the debate.”
That’s Okay, I have a hard time imagining how anyone, particularly a bunch of rich Hollywood leftist and those who depend on government for their nice fat salaries, come off thinking someone making $200K a year is RICH! For someone living in Two Dot, Montana (population 2-small business) that might be a lot of money…to those paying the bills in many parts of California it is not.
“You’re being very unclear.”
I was very clear…”They depend on the high income years to make up for low income years.” Once again the pointy headed folks in the room think in terms of tax tables and percentages…NOT PEOPLE! If I make over $200K this year but $50K over the next two the money that government took from me when I made the $200K is significant in my life!
Through tax cuts, for one. Also hiring incentives, like Making Work Pay.
Making work pay did zot for hiring as our unemployment record indicates so loudly and clearly. This tiny little bone comes from a mind that has no understanding of business. It’s like the constant push to get business to borrow…who wants to borrow when the future is filed with so much uncertainty!
“…to now, when entire infrastructures around the world are in shambles.”
Infrastructures are not now in shambles. Fat cats are being propped up by stupid politicians. Governments are broken, bloated, and grossly in the red, all a result of bad leftist policy! Those running government are extremely bad learners. They do everything except what would work! Clue: Freedom, free market principles, small government! Human beings working for their own survival free to sink or swim. Free to pick themselves up and try again…not managed by central planners.
“Now you seem to be saying that higher taxes can be justified in a time of crisis, which seems to go against everything you’ve ever written. Do you really think that the high taxation rates during WWII were justified due to the extreme circumstances?”
In the WWII high rates were imposed on those making over $1 million. In 1941 $1 million had the buying power of $15,434,625.85 in 2011.
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=1%2C000%2C000.00&year1=1941&year2=2011
Only the very wealthy were taxed at the high rate in 1941 not people struggling to keep their business or family afloat.
http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/tassava.WWII
Warren Buffet doesn’t mind a higher rate..why should he? But his wealth is being likened to people making $200K or couples making $250K today. THERE IS NO COMPARISON!
And no, I don’t think it’s moral or easily justified to tax anyone at high rates. I do think it is morally wrong to grow government the way we have and to create debt as we have…that is the only reason (ignorant) politicians fight for higher tax rates. The solution is cutting spending and shrinking the size of government!
By the 1950’s those high rates were resented by many that were required to pay them. Reagan was one who spoke out about it. Here’s a lesson from the 1980’s when the high tax rate was 70%:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-192.html
“Today’s taxation rates, especially on the top two brackets, are extraordinarily low when judged against almost any year prior to 1988.”
And if you look at the result you will see that high tax rates lead to lower revenues for government…that amounts to a stupid tax policy! Kennedy lowered tax rates for just that reason…so did Reagan for just that reason. Lower rates incentivise toward greater productivity, a larger tax base, and less cheationg on income tax returns! Government takes in more revenue not less.
“…all I’m asking for is a three percent increase on the top 2% of the richest Americans. This is not too much to ask!”
No! YOu are asking for a three percent increase on people who are not the richest Americans because you don’t understand business, tax returns, or what creates higher revenue for government and JOBS JOBS JOBS!
“…you can’t ignore the recent reports of rising income inequality and low social mobility…blah blah blah”
The conditions that have cause those recent reports are not always articulated by the left. Inflation, bigger government and unions paying inflated wages and making policies that send jobs out of the country caused a lot of that disperity and misery. Leftist (including Rino’s) policy and the failures of regulators created the housing bubble and lending mess that now has even more Americans out of work and on food stamps. The wealthy have the capacity to create greater opportunity for everyone through investment and philanthropy when government creates a friendly environment for business. Government has the power to take and redistribute…the more they take the less there is to create opportunity.
The question is do you want people to be independent and self-reliant or dependent and needy?
“If your theory that raising taxes on the rich to increase benefits for the poor is such a disaster, then we should be seeing opposite results.”
We will never get anywhere if your thinking capacity remains this shallow!
“But the fact is that the American dream, wherein people can move up and succeed regardless of their social class, has relocated to the Scandinavian countries, where government provides more services from the less fortunate and demands more from the more fortunate.”
That’s the leftist point of view. It is, once again, a bookish evaluation based on percentages and the utopian dream rather than the human condition. Some people report high alcohol abuse and little incentive to work…if they stay on this course they will become Soviet Russia in no time. Soon the governments will have to force people to work because there won’t be any incentive for productive people. Everyone will want to be in the cart and nobody will want to pull it. It’s a slow death but a certain one. Human nature makes it so.
“This is just a fact, and it’s one Republicans have not addressed.”
It is not a fact it’s a story! There is an alternate story; one that Democrats refuse to address.
“‘Freedom’ was not universally applied in America in the early 1900s, as you well know.”
And that has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion about taxing the wealthy and who the wealthy are. The principles opf freedom and property rights remain relevant regardless.
“And are you really arguing that mandatory taxation, in and of itself, demeans freedom and property rights to the point where they become meaningless?”
What I am saying is that the socialist/Marxist ideal, “from those according to their means to those according to their needs” IS NOT an American ideal and is an affront to freedom and property rights. Democrats no longer have respect for either. Way too many have fully embraced the Marxist ideal!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_need#Origin_of_the_phrase
“I will have to respond more later.”
OK by me…Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Tina:
“Starting in 2013 Medicare contributions rates will change. Instead of 1.45% of wages paid into Medicare you will pay 2.35% and your employer will too.”
No, I won’t, because I don’t make anywhere near $200,000 a year. Even the Americans for Tax Reform page you linked to right before making this statement points out that the new tax only applies to single individuals making $200,000 and married couples making $250,000. Only 2% of Americans make that kind of money.
You are, once again, pretending that a tax which only applies to a very tiny portion of Americans actually applies to many more. This is the entire strategy of the Republican party these days; that’s why Paul Ryan claimed that “many small businesses” pay at the top tax rate, which is obviously untrue.
The claim that the FSA cap will harm special needs children ignores that the IRS offers a very generous tax credit to parents of special needs children.
The claim that wheelchairs will be taxed is simply false. Wheelchairs and many other medical supplies are exempt.
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/09/rnc-tax-attack-goes-too-far/
“It makes a downright false claim that ordinary wheelchairs would be among “medical supplies” subject to a proposed tax on manufacturers and importers. Thats not true: Wheelchairs and roughly half of all other medical devices would be exempt. (When we pointed this out, an RNC official said the ad would be modified, however.)”
“they don’t care that Wall Street money is invested in such a way that it creates jobs and opportunities to obtain wealth for private citizens.”
This makes me wonder if you’ve been asleep for the past ten years. Wall Street has absolutely NOT been investing in a way that creates jobs and opportunities; if they had been, we wouldn’t be in this mess.
“The Ryan plan would help put us on course to repair the damage and reduce our debt. It would offer business some certainty about the future.”
At what cost? According to the CBO’s analysis, the plan would take the burden off of the government, but it would place more of a burden on the elderly:
http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=2128
“Under the proposal CBO analyzed, debt would eventually shrink relative to the size of the economybut the gradually increasing number of Medicare beneficiaries participating in the new premium support program would bear a much larger share of their health care costs than they would under the current program; payments to physicians and other providers for services provided under the traditional Medicare program would be restrained (as under the two scenarios); states would have to pay substantially more for their Medicaid programs or tightly constrain spending for those programs; and spending as a share of GDP for federal programs other than Social Security and the major health care programs would be reduced far below historical levels.”
Tina: “It’s at least no more sinister than focusing attention on so-called Wall Street greed when making money is the purpose of those who work on Wall Street. Making money isn’t a crime…”
No one is protesting the making of money! They are protesting the unethical and in many cases illegal methods used to make this money, and the collapse of the middle class that has come about as a result. They are protesting the fact that they are being asked to make sacrifices when the wealthiest Americans are not.
“In fact the one wealth maker ensures there is more opportunity for the hard working poor to improve their circumstances and to accumulate some wealth of their own over time.”
We’ve been over this before. The wealthy are doing better than ever. Large corporations are seeing record profits and many of them aren’t even paying taxes. Meanwhile, we also have record levels of poverty. If your trickle-down theories are true, then how is this even possible? Why aren’t the “wealth makers” creating jobs when they are doing better than ever?
Christian Science Monitor: “The numbers are clear. According to IRS data, fully 48% of the net income of sole proprietorships, partnerships, and S corporations reported on tax returns went to households with incomes above $200,000 in 2007.”
I actually ran across this article the other day, but it doesn’t answer the question of how many small businesses pay at the top two rates. The comments to the article do a good job of pointing this out. 48% of net INCOME could be attributed to a very small percentage of actual PEOPLE. And as we now know, a very small percentage of Americans actually own a very large share of the country’s wealth, so this statistic essentially tells us nothing about how many small business owners actually pay at these rates.
“Who cares about a percentage…we are talking about real peoples lives and livlihoods,”
Exactly, and we should know how many people are directly affected and if their lives and livelihoods are being negatively affected by any tax increase.
But if you don’t know (or care) that the vast majority of American small business owners do not make enough to qualify for the increase, and if you do not know (or care) that those few who will be affected make about five times more than the national median income, and if you do not know (or care) that most of the money made by these people comes from sources other than small business income, then you can’t make an informed opinion on whether the tax increase should be enacted. At most, you will be able to form an opinion based only on an ideological perspective, not on practical reality. You certainly wouldn’t be judging the issue based on anyone’s lives and livelihoods.
“people who are responsible for creating the majority of jobs in the country!”
The top 2% are hardly responsible for creating the “majority of jobs in the country.”
“Most of these people are not rich.”
ALL of the people who will be hit with a tax increase are rich by any reasonable definition. If you don’t consider someone making more than five times the national median income “rich,” then you are basically saying that the term “rich” is completely subjective to you, and there is no point in you even having a debate about this issue with anyone.
“That’s Okay, I have a hard time imagining how anyone, particularly a bunch of rich Hollywood leftist and those who depend on government for their nice fat salaries, come off thinking someone making $200K a year is RICH!”
I have a hard time imagining how anyone other than someone who has never been poor or even middle-class–and who, in addition, is absolutely terrible at math–could come off thinking that someone making $200K a year is NOT rich. That is absurd to me. If you are making that much money, you are making thousands of dollars more than most people in your city no matter what city in the country you live in. It is ridiculous to say that a person making that much money is not rich.
“For someone living in Two Dot, Montana (population 2-small business) that might be a lot of money…to those paying the bills in many parts of California it is not.”
Yes, it still is. There is no part of California where $200K is not a lot of money. Look up the median incomes for every city in the state. None of them come close to that number.
“I was very clear…”They depend on the high income years to make up for low income years.” Once again the pointy headed folks in the room think in terms of tax tables and percentages…NOT PEOPLE! If I make over $200K this year but $50K over the next two the money that government took from me when I made the $200K is significant in my life!”
Then they will take less from you the year you make $50K.
“Infrastructures are not now in shambles. Fat cats are being propped up by stupid politicians.”
“Fat cats?” Isn’t that one of them “class warfare,” blame-the-rich terms that only us smelly Marxists use?
“In the WWII high rates were imposed on those making over $1 million.”
According to the National Taxpayer’s Union, the top rate started at $200,000:
http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html
I will have to respond more later.
“If I make over $200K this year but $50K over the next two the money that government took from me when I made the $200K is significant in my life!”
Tina … elaborate.
I can see this being a right common occurrence in the life of an entrepreneur, but tell us … why should you not pony up during that $200K year?
During the $50K years your obligations would be negligible. Why should you not pay up, otherwise?
Were you thinking that your income should average out? … $100K per? If that’s what you were thinking, you want to get your JD and sell your soul to some legal corporation.
Entrepreneurs pay when they flush, and coast when they’re not, and thank the Goddess they live in a country that affords them the option.
Libby: “I can see this being a right common occurrence in the life of an entrepreneur, but tell us … why should you not pony up during that $200K year?”
The law, as is often the case, does not take circumstances into consideration. When companies/small bus. owners were allowed to income average over a period of years (3 I believe) a more accurate picture of their actual income in those three years was established for tax purposes. Now the taxpayer is taxed in one year as if he always makes that larger amount. When income changes dramatically from year to year, it’s difficult to plan and paying out that extra money in taxes is a real burden. I have no idea from year to year how much business I will have…it’s a total crap shoot. When I have one good year in the midst of several bad years I’m sometimes playing catch up and sometimes hoping to use that money to get ahead of the game for the future so my company can have some stability.
The subject was whether those making over $200.K should be considered rich…many people will fall into that category now and then when their actual income over time clearly shows they are not rich and in fact may struggle to keep their businesses afloat because government takes such a big bite of the profits they could be using to support their business. I can let an employee go and work longer hours and I can try to lower my energy costs…those things are punishing enough…but taxes are something that can’t be avoided!
Producers are discouraged and punsished by progressive tax policy and you don’t mind a bit…stick it to them…but using other peoples money to pay for upkeep on those who won’t work and contribute is a moral imperative…disgusting.
“During the $50K years your obligations would be negligible.”
Not so. You just don’t get it!
“Entrepreneurs pay when they flush, and coast when they’re not, and thank the Goddess they live in a country that affords them the option.”
You don’t get it…and probably never will.
Chris I spent three hours last night replying to you point by point only to lose the comment at posting. I don’t have the time or heart to try to reconstruct today.
Let me just say you are right on the medicare percentage…for now. Just a few years ago they took the limit off earnings for Medicare deductions. Over time Americans pay more in taxes one way or another…ALL Americans. If you think that only the rich will pay just because that’s the talking point that democrats always use to pass more tax legislation you just haven’t lived long enough, or paid enough of your hard earned money to the government.
The truth about this argument is that it comes down to a difference in ideology and point of view. You are in nfavor of growing government and using government to impose whatever taxes are necessary to take care of people. I think people should take care of themselves.
In my opinion your posaition will see a total collapse of the country…the rich don’t have enough money to pay for what democrats want to “give away”. All Americans will be taxed at higher rates, companies will continue to send jobs to friendlier countries and unemployment will remain high. At some point inflation will begin to rise dramatically…and energy costs will find the poor huddled and freezing in winter…thank you so much for caring.
It’s no accident that progressives are, for the most part, either very rich or working for or with (SEIU, AFLCIO) government. They don’t have a clue who creates the wealth that they dip into through the heavy hand of government tax on a regular basis.
The subject of this post was that future generations (YOU) will pay higher taxes if we continue on this course:
The bottom tax bracket, which is now 10 percent, would have to rise to 25 percent. The middle rate would have to rise to 63 percent. And the top rate, the rate many small businesses pay, would rise to 88 percent. Then, in the next sentence, they deadpanned, “This could have some negative effects on the economy at that time.” (emphasis mine)
Get that, Chris, little ol’ you will likely be paying at a 63% rate unless you somehow manage (union pressure?) to get into the top bracket. The working poor will pay 25%. That assessment may be conservative, IMO. It’s based on numbers on a page rather than human behavior. It doesn’t take into consideration that people won’t find working hard to make a profit worth it anymore. I predict the number of people riding in the cart will just keep growing and growing and those pulling the cart will pull back on their work habits to pay lower tax or just quit working. If that happens poverty on a large scale is likely and the golden goose will be dead.
You don’t get it either.
Tina, quoting me:
“…you can’t ignore the recent reports of rising income inequality and low social mobility…blah blah blah”
I’m sorry, did you just “blah blah” income inequality and lack of social mobility in the United States? Because it’s that kind of attitude from Republicans that leads people to think you don’t actually care about these problems. It’s that attitude that led Herman Cain to say it’s the unemployed’s fault for being unemployed in the middle of one of the worst unemployment crises our nation has ever faced.
How do you explain the success of countries such as Denmark and Sweden, Tina, countries which have far more generous social welfare programs than our own? If social welfare programs are what’s bringing our nation down, why are they helping the Swedes and Danes rise up?
“The wealthy have the capacity to create greater opportunity for everyone through investment and philanthropy when government creates a friendly environment for business.”
Indeed, the wealthy do have this opportunity. The wealthy are currently more wealthy than ever. Large corporations are turning in record profits. How much more “friendly” does the government have to be to these corporations before they actually start using that opportunity to create jobs?
“Government has the power to take and redistribute…the more they take the less there is to create opportunity.”
But sometimes government spending, when it is used to invest in worthy causes, actually does create opportunity. My federal student aid money created the opportunity for me to go to college. An opportunity I wouldn’t have otherwise had. Before you respond, you should know that I applied for private scholarships, and received three, totaling about $1,000. That is not enough for a college education, as you surely know. Because of this opportunity (mostly provided by government money), I am almost done with my B.A. and will be moving into the teaching credential program next fall. This will prepare me to get a decent paying job as a teacher, and I will have more money to buy things and contribute to the economy.
“The question is do you want people to be independent and self-reliant or dependent and needy?”
I reject the simplicity of the question. The world does not operate in such binary terms. Right now, I do partially depend on the FAFSA check I get each semester. If I did not receive it, and still found some way to pay for college, I would likely be buried under a mountain of student loan debt, like most of my peers who are not poor enough to qualify for federal aid but not well-off enough to afford college. Ask anyone in that situation if they feel financially independent.
“That’s the leftist point of view. It is, once again, a bookish evaluation based on percentages and the utopian dream rather than the human condition. Some people report high alcohol abuse and little incentive to work…”
The unemployment rate in Sweden is lower than it is in the U.S. I couldn’t find any statistics on alcohol abuse. These statistics are relevant to the “human condition.”
“if they stay on this course they will become Soviet Russia in no time.”
This, to me, reads like 50s-style red scare paranoia which has little place in today’s world.
“And that has absolutely nothing to do with this
discussion about taxing the wealthy and who the wealthy are. The principles opf freedom and property rights remain relevant regardless.”
But it has a lot to do with the central narrative of the Republican party, that Obama and the left are somehow encroaching on freedom in an unprecedented manner. Even if I were to agree that tax increases are inherently an encroachment on freedom, the increases proposed are extraordinarily minor compared to historical rates.
“What I am saying is that the socialist/Marxist ideal, “from those according to their means to those according to their needs” IS NOT an American ideal and is an affront to freedom and property rights.”
But I disagree that this is the philosophy underlying the Democratic party’s proposals.
“Chris I spent three hours last night replying to you point by point only to lose the comment at posting. I don’t have the time or heart to try to reconstruct today.”
I hate it when that happens. 🙁
“Let me just say you are right on the medicare percentage…for now.”
Thanks for the acknowledgement.
“When companies/small bus. owners were allowed to income average over a period of years (3 I believe) a more accurate picture of their actual income in those three years was established for tax purposes.”
Now THIS is a reasonable argument, and I am not opposed to the idea of averaging out income for tax purposes over the period of a few years. I would have to look into this idea more before I can fully embrace it, but it seems like a sensible proposal.
That said, if the average over a few years period is greater than $250,000, I would definitely support a moderate tax increase for that person.
Chris as luck would have it I lost another hour this afternoon attempting to post a comment but you asked so many thoughtful questions I will make an effort to give it another shot.
You wrote: “did you just “blah blah” income inequality and lack of social mobility in the United States?”
No I did not. I left out a portion of what you wrote.
“Because it’s that kind of attitude from Republicans that leads people to think you don’t actually care about these problems.”
You probably didn’t notice that it is your own attitude and opinion of conservatives and their ideas that lead you to these conclusions.
I went on to explain that income disparity is being blamed on capitalism and conservative ideas and that is not true. Paraphrasing myself: “The conditions that have caused those recent reports are not always articulated by the left. Inflation, bigger government, unions being paid inflated wages and benefits, and politicians making policies that send jobs out of the country caused a lot of that disperity and misery.”
“How do you explain the success of countries such as Denmark and Sweden, Tina, countries which have far more generous social welfare programs than our own?”
Depends on how you measure success!
“If social welfare programs are what’s bringing our nation down, why are they helping the Swedes and Danes rise up?”
First of all social programs aren’t the only thing bringing us dow, Secondly, who says the Swedes and Danes are rising up? There are voices in those countries that paint a different picture. High taxes are a drain and people who work hard resent those who feed off the system. Creativity and innovation are stgnant because there is little incentive to excell when achievement isn’t rewarded. They describe a coondition that is like being placed in a large vat of war water in a dark room; its very soothing and comfortable but not very alive or challenging. If life is a banquet, the collective life is a bowl of oatmeal.
“Large corporations are turning in record profits. How much more “friendly” does the government have to be to these corporations before they actually start using that opportunity to create jobs?”
That wealth is being realized from investment in other countries! It isn’t worth it to invest in America, a country with the highest corporate tax, complex expensive regulation, citizens with the attitude that they are owed a big salary no matter their lack of skills or how hard they work, and a government that is determined to make energy costs skyrocket.
“But sometimes government spending, when it is used to invest in worthy causes, actually does create opportunity. My federal student aid money created the opportunity for me to go to college. ”
But government doesn’t have to be the source of college loans. Banks made loans to students based on their good grades and future earning potential before the Obama administration took that freedom away in a shameless power grab. Now government is the only source for student loans ensuring democrats a voting base…when they manage to get debt forgiveness into the mix they will have bought voters for life.
Congratualtions on your higher education achievement. I would attribute your success to your upbringing before I would give government the credit. You had enough ambition and forethought to get yourself three scholarships. That indicates to me that you would have found a way to complete your college education without government help. I hired a young man who didn’t want loan debt. He was from a poor family and was working three part time jobs when I hired him. He was able to give up his other jobs when I hired him and sleep a lot more (smile). It took him five years to get his EE degree but he made it and graduated with no debt.
Consider too that if government was not so disfunctional state colleges would not be so expensive and more deserving students would have the opportunity to attend.
“I reject the simplicity of the question. The world does not operate in such binary terms.”
Ahhh, but we are not takling about how the world operates; we are talking about how humans are affected when ideology is put into practice. Human beings will usually take an easier path. Sometimes the easier path leads creative man to a more efficient or better design but when government starts handing out benefits it’s seldom that people will decline the offer. Before long its just a way of life. Good citizens don’t realized what they have sacrificed in the bargain. Too often handouts lead to generations of citizens settling for a nonproductive, empty life.
“…I would likely be buried under a mountain of student loan debt, like most of my peers who are not poor enough to qualify for federal aid but not well-off enough to afford college.”
So how does that make you feel? Is the government really operating as if you were equals as citizens with equal rights or is it playing god, picking winners and losers from a position that those who earn a dollar more than the cutoff amount are too wealthy. That’s really what it amounts to isn’t it? (Remember too that a loan is not a handout as long as it and the interest due are repaid per the agreement)
Please know Chris that I don’t begrudge you or your mom the assistance you have received. You were just taking advantage of the opportunities made available to you…just like corporations take advantage of the tax loopholes imbedded in the tax code.
I don’t argue for conservative principles and ideals to punish people, make them feel bad, or place blame. We are all caught up in the conditions of our time. I argue because I love people and I honestly believe that the system constructed by our founders, a system that asks a lot of each and every able bodied citizen, is the best system ever devised by man. I believe we have strayed from that system and I believe we are suffering division and are at each others throats because we strayed. When everyone is free to pursue happiness through his own efforts, each remains equal regardless the level of prosperity he may desire or achieve. I like the dignity and unity embodied in that ideal.
“The unemployment rate in Sweden is lower than it is in the U.S.”
I have to admit when I wrote that I was operating on old information (2005)
But what does that tell you about the path the US has taken over the corse of several decades? What does it tell you about Obamas ideaology and policies?
How about we (both) examine the economic history of Sweden and the conditions that have resulted in their prosperity. They are doing better because they are returning to free market principles and small government policies:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENDE8ve35f0
(I’ll be posting this video later tonight)
“But it has a lot to do with the central narrative of the Republican party, that Obama and the left are somehow encroaching on freedom in an unprecedented manner.”
Unprecedented? We argue that he is continuing and expanding upon the failed leftist ideas that have been gradually imposed on the American people over decades!
“Even if I were to agree that tax increases are inherently an encroachment on freedom, the increases proposed are extraordinarily minor compared to historical rates.”
Have you given any thought to the timing of raising taxes and spending like a maniac? Is it wise to kick a suffering dog or would you offer it shelter, sustenance and water?
Many Americans are really struggling, others can’t see much hope for the future even if they are hanging on, and Obama chooses that time to:
Expand government (requiring more tax revenue)
Spend like a drunken sailor (creating massive amounts of debt for future generations)
Spend that money to reward certain groups (green alternative energy companies and unions) The result of which is to protect (“save”) the jobs of those big blocs who vote democrat but few jobs for others.
Place restrictions and oppressive regulation on traditional energy producers (ultimately making energy more expensive for citizens and business).
Creating a healthcare law that adds mounds of new expensive regulation and bureaucracy.
I may have missed a few things but in truth I can’t think of a single thing he has done that would stimulate the overall economy and create real lasting jobs.
“But I disagree that this is the philosophy underlying the Democratic party’s proposals.”
Okay. How would you describe the philosophy behind them?
What is the constitutional authority for government involvement in healthcare for instance? What principle or ideal held by the founders inspires Democrat proposals?
“That said, if the average over a few years period is greater than $250,000, I would definitely support a moderate tax increase for that person.”
I see your sense of timing, as well as your sense of what works, is as ill-advised as Obamas.
(I’m off to post that video now)
“Not so. You just don’t get it!”
Prove it. Explain it to us. Because, frankly, I think you are just sniveling over the $200K year, for which you had to pay.
Libby many businesses operate under conditions like farmers do…the future is unpredictable. When I buy parts I have to assume a certain amount of business. I’m trying to get low bid contracts. Some of the parts I buy can only be purchased in large lots, others only in larger lots to keep the price down. When two years of lower than expected sales happen following a fairly good year I still have parts on the shelves that I have to pay for and that means my obligations are not “negligable” but ongoing. The opposite can happen as well. As I have said on many occassions the code does not work. it is complex, difficult, and rarely fair given the circumstances of peoples lives. we are not numbers and percentages, we are people. (And besides it is our money they seek to take…we deserve more respect regardless of income)
I do not make $200K a year…sorry! In fact, over the last few years I have been near the poverty level…but at least my employees haven’t had to go stand in Obama unemployment lines!
I’m sorry Tina, but you are still not making any sense. Anything you contract for, you should have the funds to fulfill the contract, over and above your “income” … and if you don’t (or make some deal re deferred payment), you’re taking a risk that is not anybody’s responsibility but yours. In a $200k income year, your owe taxes on the $200k.
No excuses, no sniveling, we don’t want to hear it.
Honestly, a person would think you hail from the Hellenic Peninsula.
Libby: “Anything you contract for, you should have the funds to fulfill the contract, over and above your “income” … and if you don’t (or make some deal re deferred payment), you’re taking a risk that is not anybody’s responsibility but yours.”
I never said the risk was anyone but mine. I do think my government has a responsibility to ensure that taking a risk is not impossible!
But beyond that you are speaking as a person who has never had to worry about cash flows, making payroll, or keeping a business afloat. It’s easy for you to sit in a secure job and decide that anyone in business should have piles of money in reserve when you vote repeatedly for government to take more of that reserve in taxes and through regulations.
“In a $200k income year, your owe taxes on the $200k. ** No excuses, no sniveling, we don’t want to hear it.”
It gets paid…no excuses and no sniveling. I am allowed an opinion, however, and in my opinion we have high unemployment, in large part, because of attitudes like yours! We business people are the golden goose you are murdering with that cavalear attitude!
Tina: “Secondly, who says the Swedes and Danes are rising up? There are voices in those countries that paint a different picture. High taxes are a drain and people who work hard resent those who feed off the system. Creativity and innovation are stgnant because there is little incentive to excell when achievement isn’t rewarded.”
But people ARE excelling. The high rate of social mobility tells us that the people in these countries are plenty incentivized.
“But government doesn’t have to be the source of college loans.”
I wasn’t talking about loans; I haven’t had to take out any, from the government or anyone else. Most of FAFSA is grants. FAFSA does offer the Stafford Loan, but I didn’t accept it, because the grants were generous enough and I didn’t want to go into any debt.
“Banks made loans to students based on their good grades and future earning potential before the Obama administration took that freedom away in a shameless power grab.”
Huh? Banks still have this freedom; Obama has not taken it away. Where did you hear this?
“Now government is the only source for student loans”
This is not at all true.
“Congratualtions on your higher education achievement. I would attribute your success to your upbringing before I would give government the credit. You had enough ambition and forethought to get yourself three scholarships. That indicates to me that you would have found a way to complete your college education without government help.”
It’s nice that you think that, Tina, but you need to accept the fact that for some people, there just isn’t another option. If there were a way for me to pay for college without getting government financial aid, I would have found it.
This attitude that those of us who rely on government help do so because we just don’t know what our other options are strikes me as arrogant. You are not in my position. You do not know what my family situation is like. It is easy for you to say we didn’t really need the government’s help if you’ve never needed it yourself.
“I hired a young man who didn’t want loan debt. He was from a poor family and was working three part time jobs when I hired him. He was able to give up his other jobs when I hired him and sleep a lot more (smile). It took him five years to get his EE degree but he made it and graduated with no debt.”
That’s awesome! And more power to you and that young man. But I don’t see how it invalidates the experience of others.
“Consider too that if government was not so disfunctional state colleges would not be so expensive and more deserving students would have the opportunity to attend.”
I agree, but we have different notions of what is at the root of that disfunctionality. In my opinion it should be illegal to raise fees for students while raising the salaries of administrators, but I’m not sure you’d agree with that idea. You might see it as harsh regulation.
“Sometimes the easier path leads creative man to a more efficient or better design but when government starts handing out benefits it’s seldom that people will decline the offer. Before long its just a way of life. Good citizens don’t realized what they have sacrificed in the bargain. Too often handouts lead to generations of citizens settling for a nonproductive, empty life.”
This may be true for some forms of social welfare, but it is not true in the case of federal financial aid. As I pointed out earlier to another poster on another article, college graduates are much less likely to go on welfare later on in life than non-graduates. I don’t consider my FAFSA a “handout;” I work for every penny of that money through my studies, and I will more than pay it back into the economy once I get a teaching job.
You should unequivocally support taxpayer funding for low-income college students. It is one form of welfare that pays off big time.
“So how does that make you feel? Is the government really operating as if you were equals as citizens with equal rights or is it playing god, picking winners and losers from a position that those who earn a dollar more than the cutoff amount are too wealthy. That’s really what it amounts to isn’t it?”
But what is the alternative, Tina? If you want “fairness” of the variety you seem to be favoring, then either everyone gets government financial aid for college, or nobody does. You would probably not favor the former, while I find the latter unfathomable. Personally, I think the threshold should be raised; I know a lot of people who, according to the government, make too much money to be considered for FAFSA, but in reality they are struggling. Some of my co-workers have said that they are not going to college because they did not qualify. So I do think the cut-off should be higher. But I’m also not sure I like the idea that college should be free for everyone.
“Please know Chris that I don’t begrudge you or your mom the assistance you have received. You were just taking advantage of the opportunities made available to you…just like corporations take advantage of the tax loopholes imbedded in the tax code.”
I know this was supposed to be a positive statement, but I don’t see how you can equate a struggling family going on government assistance in order to make ends meet to, say, G.E. executives taking advantage of legal loopholes in order to avoid losing a relatively small portion of their millions.
“I don’t argue for conservative principles and ideals to punish people, make them feel bad, or place blame.”
I know, Tina, I know…but I believe that sometimes your policies have that effect anyway.
“I love people and I honestly believe that the system constructed by our founders, a system that asks a lot of each and every able bodied citizen, is the best system ever devised by man.”
I agree with this as well.