-
The Democrats’ Walmart Obsession
June 4, 2013 | 112 comments
-
Real Immigration Reform Requires Free Markets
May 24, 2013 | 94 comments
-
McCain-Feingold Gave Us the IRS Scandal
May 21, 2013 | 122 comments
-
It’s.The.Law
May 20, 2013 | 20 comments
-
The Taxman Cometh (for Tea Partiers)
May 13, 2013 | 150 comments
Political Hay
Economic Ignorance and the Buffett Rule
As Obama’s class war is endorsed by 51 U.S. senators, polls suggest it’s a political winner.
On Monday, the United States Senate voted on S.2230, the Orwellian-of-title “Paying a Fair Share Act of 2012.” (More precisely, senators voted on whether to invoke cloture and end debate on the measure.) Based on the so-called “Buffett Rule,” the bill, authored by Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and cosponsored by the most left-wing members of the Senate, aims to raise the taxes of American taxpayers who earn $1,000,000 or more in a year by forcing anyone who meets the income thresholds to pay a minimum percentage of their total income to the federal government.
The tally was 51 votes in favor, short of the required 60 votes, with 45 senators voting against this naked and divisive class warfare. It was a party-line vote other than Susan Collins (RINO-ME) who voted with the Democrats while Mark Pryor (D-AR) voted with the Republicans. (Neither is up for re-election in 2012.) Two Republicans, one Democrat, and Joe Lieberman did not vote, with Lieberman issuing a statement that he was against the Buffett Rule.
Specifically, the bill would create a 30-percent income tax rate which phases in beginning at one million dollars of income and is fully effective at $2 million of income.
Other than the “phase-in” the tax calculation is simple: If you make more than a million dollars, take your adjusted gross income, subtract charitable deductions, then multiply by 30 percent. From that amount, subtract the income tax, payroll tax, and Alternative Minimum Tax already due or paid, but add back your itemized deductions. (Taxes paid to foreign governments, income taxes withheld from your paycheck, and tax refunds for fuel used on farms and other non-road purposes are not added back to income for “Fair Share” calculations.) Then write a check for that amount to the United States Treasury.
For those Americans who are unfortunate enough to have great success in their businesses or investments, this bill effectively disallows deductions for mortgage interest, retirement account contributions, adoption expenses and other common itemized deductions except for donations to charity.
Between one and two million dollars of income, the additional tax is reduced based on how far along that scale you are, so that at $1.5 million, your “fair share” punishment is half of the amount calculated based on the above formula.
One revolutionary aspect — in the sense that V.I. Lenin or Fidel Castro was a revolutionary — of the “Fair Share Act” is that it does not add a marginal rate increase to those earning above the Democrats’ demonization threshold. Instead, it retroactively increases the tax rate on the first dollar earned, while simultaneously increasing the amount of the victim’s earnings that is subject to taxation.
It is a plan that is corrosive to our nation, pitting Americans against each other. It is a plan that will have negligible economic impact, raising less than 1 percent of the anticipated accumulated deficit over the next decade… and even that assumes away the anti-growth impacts of such an anti-entrepreneurial tax. The likely result is even worse than these estimates. And because so many Americans no longer know what has made our nation a success, it is a plan that, even as it fails legislatively, may work politically.
To the extent that very-high-income Americans have an effective tax rate that is lower than class warriors think it “should” be, it is primarily from the portion of their income that comes from capital gains (and to a lesser extent from dividends). History has shown us that raising capital gains taxes does not generate more tax revenue.
The vaunted Clinton budget surplus, for example, only arose in the second half of his presidency after he signed the 1997 law that cut the capital gains tax rate from 28 percent to 20 percent. According to a Heritage Foundation study, the Treasury Department estimated that the tax cut would cause a small net loss of revenue to the government, estimated at about $30 billion in the fourth year after implementation.
Instead, from 1996 to 1999, capital gains tax receipts increased by over 71 percent while GDP growth accelerated and unemployment dropped. To be sure, not all of the increased economic activity and stock price increase of the period was due to the capital gains tax cut. But some of it surely was, a contention boosted by the fact that capital gains tax receipts also jumped almost 25% in just two years following President Reagan’s 1981 tax cuts.
But this isn’t really about revenue for the Obama administration, and it never has been. When asked in 2008 about whether he would raise capital gains taxes even if it doesn’t raise revenue, he said yes “for purposes of fairness.”
Unfortunately for our republic, American citizens’ economic literacy — which should be the body politic’s primary anti-venom against President Obama’s snake oil — is just where the liberals want it, which is to say non-existent. Progressives have spent a century stripping public education and the ivory towers of universities of economic rationality. Such rationality — including the obvious lessons of an untaught history — would reinforce the limited-government principles of our Founding which are directly antithetical to the Progressive vision. Economic and political restraint go hand in glove, as well understood by those who penned our national rulebook called the Constitution.
For those of you who went to public school and finished high school in the last 20 years, you know that the Constitution is a barely legible piece of paper, written by a bunch of dead rich white guys. You know that it means what a few people in black robes say it means (regardless of its plain language). And you probably don’t know that the left sees it as “political witchcraft” and an obstacle to their long-held dreams of political nirvana in which the smart people (no conservatives or libertarians need apply) wield power over the rest of us — for our own benefit, of course. In short, you know just what John Dewey (hero of Marxists) and his disciples wanted you to know — and maybe less, but certainly not more.
By offering “everything for everyone for free” (a slogan I actually saw on a 20-foot wide banner during the 2008 Democratic National Convention in Denver), Democrats — with the unforgiveable passivity of decades of Republicans — are creating the political nightmare foreseen in a quote usually attributed to Alexander Tytler: “A democracy…can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits…with the result that a democracy always collapses….”
About the Author
Ross Kaminsky is a self-employed trader and investor and is a senior fellow of the Heartland Institute. He is the host of The Ross Kaminsky Show on Denver’s NewsRadio 850 KOA at 11 AM on most Sundays. You can reach Ross by e-mail at rossputin(at)rossputin(dot)com.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (169) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Ross Kaminsky
More Articles From Political Hay
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/04/17/economic-ignorance-and-the-buf
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Drink Earlier, Drink Less
- Confessions of a Soft-Drinking Newspaperman
- The Continuing Crisis
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Ken (Old Texican)| 4.17.12 @ 7:25AM
Ross,
very well spoken, sir. Thanks for the JFK quotes.
Jack in Wi.| 4.17.12 @ 7:59AM
It worked for FDR and Truman for 5 elections, why not for Obama? They even have billionares like Buffet and others who love the idea. Obama is going to paint Romney as a very rich man who loves bailouts for the rich and screwing the poor and Middle Class by cutting entitlements and benefits. He will also run as the peace candidate again, even if he is almost a big a chicken hawk, warmonger. That and a billion dollars should put him back in the White House for another 4 years. In order to beat someone you have to have likable candidate and real program. We have neither with Bush 3 Romney.
Curly| 4.17.12 @ 8:25AM
Hey Moe, the old phart is going to vote Obama again. Aarf AArf.
cvrgrl| 4.17.12 @ 12:42PM
yeah, good quote...
Alexander Tytler: "A democracy…can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits…with the result that a democracy always collapses…."
here's one back at you...
what nathan hale would
have added (before the bullet)
"i regret i only have one
life to give to my country"...
but i have lots of dollars
so, take them, oooh, tax me
baby, ....
ENOUGH ROPE| 4.17.12 @ 1:13PM
DEMOniC-RATS hate America. It's that simple.
Alan Brooks| 4.17.12 @ 7:46PM
At today least there's no:
"Jack hates the Joos
Jack hates the Joos
Jack hates the Joos
Jack hates the Joos
Jack hates the Joos
Jack hates the Joos
Jack hates the Joos
Jack hates the Joos..."
If someone doesn't like how a trillion or more was poured down the Afghanistan rathole, merely call him an anti-semite-
works like a charm.
Ross Kaminsky | 4.17.12 @ 10:34AM
I really believe Romney will beat Obama. Obama is not FDR as much as he wishes he were. Furthermore, FDR's environment (real depression, major war) were very different from 2012.
For all the valid things that make conservatives question Romney's conservative credentials, those same things may make him appealing to independent voters.
We'll see. I have actually bet on Romney's winning...but I haven't bet a lot.
(Basically selling Obama around 60%, so getting 3:2 odds.)
LiveFreeOrDie| 4.17.12 @ 12:06PM
The odds makers do not get it wrong very often. I predict a close election with voter fraud being the final determiner. Every Romney/Obama poll favors the incumbent. The 'R' nomination is a loser this cycle but I'll join you in hoping I'm wrong.
SUBVET| 4.17.12 @ 12:09PM
Ross......my fear is "he" will steal it.
Al Adab| 4.17.12 @ 12:28PM
One cannot beat something with nothing. When it comes to counting electoral votes, where can the GOP find the 100 it needs to elect a President? In '08 the count was 365 to 173. Not many states are "in play" and the GOP would have to take them all to succeed. That is a tall order.
MikeG| 4.17.12 @ 9:03PM
Don't you think Romney is better than Obama? Come on,now.
Doctor Right| 4.17.12 @ 12:29PM
I agree. All those great "independents"...many of them people who don't care that much about politics, but feel in their gut that the country is moving in the wrong direction, will look at Romney and see a healthy, competent, statesman-like candidate...
...then they will look at Obama.
And they will pull the lever for Romney.
Gas prices are rising. Economy not improving. Healthcare a mess.
I don't see Obama having much of a chance.
Ground Control| 4.17.12 @ 12:42PM
I HOPE you're right and a CHANGE is imminent.
LiveFreeOrDie| 4.17.12 @ 2:00PM
"Gas prices are rising. Economy not improving. Healthcare a mess."
And 2 out of 3 won't even be noticed! The "people who don't care that much about politics" will be spoon-fed the leftist lies and distortions from the media and that's before the O unleashes the power of a billion dollar campaign. They don't see a problem with healthcare and the economy is improving...who cares if it's not true because perception is reality. Who will tell them anything different?
They will notice and have noticed the high price of fuel but that won't translate into anything negative for Obama. It's Bush's fault, it's the crony capitalists, collusion among "big oil" etc, etc. The gullible take everything on the nightly news at face value, no critical thinking, no investigating additional sources or independent thought.
A Sphincter Says What?| 4.17.12 @ 7:27PM
You simply, and I mean simply, don't understand the machine that is starting to roll......and will roll at full speed over Obomney. The cult of personality will be what gets those voters who "don't care that much" to pull the lever for Obama.
MikeG| 4.17.12 @ 9:02PM
So what is your point, ASWW, who are you voting for?
JayDick| 4.18.12 @ 11:03AM
Romney 55%, Obama 45%
Everybody sells Romney's campaigning ability short. Just wait. And remember, it's very early.
Moe Blotz| 4.17.12 @ 7:36AM
Before the eeeeevil George W. Bush finished his second term as president, either he or another Republican quoted JFK concerning taxes and economic growth. The late Ted Kennedy denounced the Republican's usage of his brother's voice claiming that the former had no right to be using a Democrat politician's words out of context. Imagine the great outrage we would hear from the lame stream media ifinfact any Republican began using JFK's words to bolster a case against our beloved leader.
TLP| 4.17.12 @ 10:19AM
"All that Evil needs, to succeed, is for good men to do nothing."
Enter the man with his head NOT on Fire.
We find ourselves embroiled in a War on Women. A War on the Poor, and a War on Fairness, so to speak.
We have a President who LIES like a Cartehanga Hooker on a Secret Service Agent, who's always out there announcing THE TRUTH, as he sees it.
His promise of all those Shovel Ready Infrastructure Jobs, was the Truth. His Deficit Neutral Health Care Master Plan was gonna Lower the costs of Health Care, and it wasn't gonna have any Earmarks in it, and he wasn't gonna sign anything that "Raised the Deficit one dime" . We're on the precipice of another Recovery Summer, those Unemployment Numbers are Spot On, and Joe Biden will be the Commencement Speaker at the next Mensa Awards Ceremony.
Let's remenisce, shall we, on what the one we've been waiting for, has actually CONTRIBUTED to the American Way.
We all know the state of the Economy, despite the Phony BULLSHIT Numbers that His Majesty, and that Lying B*tch Labour Secretary - Solis- put out on a Monthly basis.
We all know that he was Lying out his ass, about the Keystone Pipeline. Lying out his ass about the Stimulus, and Lying out his ass about any and everything that he says when his lips are moving.
He's got a Vile POS at Treasury, a Lying Forger at Energy and the Interior, and a RACIST CROOK running his Justice Department. (Please, no Whites need apply. You can show up - if you have a Photo I. D. - but we're not gonna do anything to help you, Honky) And, when he's not Running Guns to the Drug Cartels in Mexico, and assisting them in the Murders of over a THOUSAND innocent Mexican Men, Women, and CHILDREN. He's doing his best to PREVENT American States from enforcing Immigration Laws the HE refuses to enforce, and shutting down State Voter I.D. Laws, and their attempts to have a FAIR ELECTION, where people who are Supposed to vote DO, and those who Aren't, DON'T. And, who cares what the Supreme Court ruled in the Voter I. D. Case, involving Indiana?
Enough about us. What about the rest of the World?
Do any of our Allies TRUST us? Do they? Do any of our Enemies FEAR us? Why did he go after Democratic Honduras at the exact instant he was telling the world that the United States would no longer "MEDDLE" in other Countries' Affairs, when he was being pushed to do SOMETHING for the Iranian people who were being killed by their own Government, in the Streets?
Why did he go in to Libya, but he REFUSES to do anything for the people of Syria. Why does he stick a SHIV in to the back of Israel, every chance he gets? And, Why does HAMAS believe that he is their DELIVERER. Why have they given him the name: ABU HUSSAIN, Son of the Father?
But, hey. Enough about me. Let's talk about Fairness. Let's talk about Contraception. Let's talk about that Lazy B*tch - Ann Romney. Who the hell does she think she is, talking about the world outside of her house. Everybody knows that the only Moms who count, in this Country, are the LESBIAN ones, who adopt little kids with their "Partners" who then go on to dump them.
Let's talk about the Buffett Rule, and let's raise the taxes on these Rich MFers, so they're not paying a higher Tax Rate than Warren Buffett. (Just...ixnay on the Obamanay and His Secretary. Capiche?)
All these things. All these distractions from the Truth about the Reign of Obama the last. Too bad we've got a Candidate who refuses to set his head on fire, blaming the President for all of the ills of the Country. It's too bad that we've, apparently, got a Lover, when we need a Fighter.
Our Founding Fathers offered their Lives, their Fortunes, and their Sacred Honour, that we might be Free from Tyranny, and live in our own Country, where we could aspire to our own Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness, free from the long arm of an overbearing Despot.
One would think that Preserving that, and Honouring the Sacrifices of Millions of Americans who gave their lives that we could be Free, would be worthy of a few singed hairs, if not an entire Head on Fire.
LMajito| 4.17.12 @ 2:58PM
get it right...it's CARTAGENA and the babe did not lie it was the gringo that refused to pay her the $47 she was due after her services...if anybody lied was the gringo no the call girl...and for that it cost him his job, his two bosses theirs, his 8 buddies theirs and the 11 military soldiers their future...all that for $47 bucks...talking about an expensive babe...or a stupid gringo thinking not with his big head...
TLP| 4.17.12 @ 8:22PM
Thank you. Unlike you, I'm not up on my Banana Republic names. And there's nothing I like more, than a compassionate SPIC, like you, reminding us that we're Gringos.
SC Mike| 4.17.12 @ 7:58AM
What makes it screwier is the millionaires paying no taxes. I guess they’re fully invested in tax-free municipal bonds. Slap a 30% tax on them and they’ll move from munies to a higher yield investment.
What does that do to the munie market? It takes out a bunch of the big money, eventually forcing the local governments to pay higher interest rates to sell the bonds.
Unfortunately the Obami don’t realize that nothing is free, not even demagoguery.
Ross Kaminsky | 4.17.12 @ 10:35AM
What is screwiest is people complaining about one or two thousand people who pay no taxes. They probably had huge carry-forward losses from the prior year.
Slap a huge tax on them and watch municipal interest rates rise, and the cost of operating state and local governments rise accordingly.
It's so distressing to see "conservatives" have so little understanding of economics...which is part of my point in the article.
Ross Kaminsky | 4.17.12 @ 10:50AM
Mike, here's a good example of what your kind of thinking gets us, from today's WSJ piece by Grover Norquist:
"The Alternative Minimum Tax was imposed in 1969 because 115 households investing in municipal bonds reportedly paid little or no federal income tax. This tax on the rich who were paying what the president and others call a "fair share" now affects four million households. On Jan. 1, 2013, it is set to hit 27 million more—raising an estimated $120 billion, according to the Obama 2013 budget. In 40 years, a tax on 115 households will have grown to threaten 31 million."
http://online.wsj.com/article/.....53148.html
Moe Blotz| 4.17.12 @ 11:32AM
If we keep buying junque from China, maybe the sino masters will buy those municipal bonds when the filthy rich can no longer buy them. Apparently our learned friends of the progressive nature prefer our enemies finance our debt rather than our millionaires finance our debt.
Ross Kaminsky | 4.17.12 @ 3:20PM
Don't forget, Moe, that we buy stuff from China because it's inexpensive. This leaves us the money to buy other things (from China or elsewhere), or to pay for better schools, doctors, cars, vacations, or whatever. Buying stuff from China is a bigger benefit to us than it is to China.
LiveFreeOrDie| 4.17.12 @ 4:37PM
I will respectfully disagree but I'm willing to listen/learn. How does an economy survive that doesn't produce anything? Where does it stop? At what point do you decide you are buying too much "stuff" from China? Where's the balance?
As an aside, hasn't the rise of Chinese goods masked inflation over the past few decades? Any thoughts?
Ross Kaminsky | 4.17.12 @ 5:20PM
Thanks for the "respectfully" part...I realize this can be about as emotional a discussion as almost anything in international economics.
The myth is that our buying stuff from China is "hollowing out" American manufacturing. However, America still produces, on a dollar basis, roughly the same percentage of the world's internationally traded goods as we did a decade ago and two decades ago and three decades ago.
What's happened is that we have ceded mfg of low value-added products to the Chinese and increased high value-added mfg here.
It is true that there are losers in this process, namely those who work in the factories whose business goes to China, and who don't get retrained for higher salary jobs.
But don't confuse recent unemployment with damage from free trade. Today's problems are caused by recession.
Instead, look at what happened after NAFTA, when many people claimed that unemployment would skyrocket. Ohio was the poster child for the state that would be destroyed by free trade. In fact, the highest unemployment rate Ohio had seen until this current recession was the month before NAFTA was implemented.
I would also note that American companies expanding overseas is correlated with their expanding here in the US. So, "outsourcing" (which I realize is not the same thing as trade in goods and services but still an important economic and political question) -- which does cause some losers -- causes MORE winners right here at home.
Let me give you another hypothetical: How much does Safeway or Home Depot buy from you? Your trade imbalance with those places is 100% of the transaction values, but that doesn't prevent you from being productive in your own right.
Indeed, if you had to grow your own food or make your own tools, you would not have the time to be truly productive...or happy.
Your question about inflation is understandable but shows a misunderstanding of what inflation is. It is a broad (and monetary) phenomenon, not just the rise or fall of a specific narrow class of goods.
There is no doubt that the rise of Chinese manufacturing has held down prices in certain segments of low-end manufactured goods.
But the whole thing is extremely complicated. For example, the rise of the Chinese middle class and the development of Chinese infrastructure has caused huge demand for basic materials/commodities, so has raised things like copper and oil, which have real price ramifications for other things we buy.
The main point I would like to make is that the "forgotten man" in discussions of free trade is always the consumer.
Seriously, think about the value to YOU of being able to buy so many things for, say 10%-20%, less than you otherwise could because of free trade (not just with China, though that country alone is a huge factor.) Think about the dollars...or thousands of dollars...you get to keep in your wallet so you can buy more or better things for yourself or your family in other aspects of your life. Thanks to free trade, it's as if most of what you buy (perhaps other than food) is on sale every day.
LiveFreeOrDie| 4.18.12 @ 4:42PM
"But the whole thing is extremely complicated."
You got that right!
Thank you for the expanded explanation. I'd like to debate it but I think we agree on a number of points and the discussion gets too in-depth on every point for this format.
Ted R.| 4.17.12 @ 8:15AM
Yet another hyperventilating piece brought to you by the past masters of class warfare at the American Spectator. Americans should read this and know that we're actually getting a chance at tax fairness under Obama; otherwise the Cons in their pen wouldn't be squealing so hard.
Fact is, you guys don't believe in a progressive tax system to begin with; so all your complaints over the debate over how progressive it ought to be, are totally disingenuous.
Funny how this shrill piece is written by a millionaire investor who has no interest in paying his fair share: no matter that the Republicans in the Senate have engaged in un-Constitutional means to thwart the proposed legislation; it's still PERSONAL for him. Great also, how he's got all his middle class seals barking their approval.
Great that this Con is trying to educate the rest of us on "economic literacy" when he thinks that raising taxes on the "lucky duckies" is going to get us to a balanced budget (talk about goddam class warfare...)
Simple fact is this: NO ONE is a "wealth creator" on their OWN. It takes a SOCIETY, with the right kind of institutions, to create an economy that generates wealth. Under Clinton, we had higher tax rates, and damn more prosperity. Enough of your lies, Kaminsky. We're gonna win this election and we're coming, right at YOU.
K. Marx| 4.17.12 @ 8:23AM
Very well put, Comrade. We need more like you in CPUSA.
chuck| 4.17.12 @ 8:39AM
This is a joke, right? Surely no one is this damned stupid.
Riff Raff| 4.17.12 @ 10:42AM
Mr. Ted R. is quite serious. And yes, he that damned stupid. He is a typical voting Democrat. There are millions of Ted R.'s out there, voting to take away other people's money to spend on themselves. They epitomize the selfishness and greed that they falsely ascribe to others. You will notice Mr. Ted R.'s screed contains personal attacks against Mr. Kaminski, because such is the tactic of the ignorant and the stupid, someone who has no logical, factual argument to make.
R is for Repugnant| 4.17.12 @ 12:02PM
Ted R. | 4.7.12 @ 3:13AM:
"Who do I say he was? Jesus of Nazareth was a well-intentioned, often insightful man, who (like many gurus) had an inflated sense of self-importance (and, he probably had a martyr complex, besides).
For sure, he didn't deserve to die; his execution served no purpose. At all."
Name one liberal who isn't this damned stupid, and a miserable joke, whatever the topic.
Indy| 4.17.12 @ 8:44AM
I'll take the spending during the Clinton years, why doesn't the Left ever propose that?
JP| 4.17.12 @ 9:10AM
"Fact is, you guys don't believe in a progressive tax system to begin with; so all your complaints over the debate over how progressive it ought to be, are totally disingenuous."
Ted, it matters little what we think. We already have a "progressive tax system". The top 10% pay over 60% of the tax bill. BTW, we already have a "Buffet Rule". It's called the AMT. Orginally, in 1969, it was the dubbed The Millionaires Tax.
JP| 4.17.12 @ 9:12AM
"Under Clinton, we had higher tax rates, and damn more prosperity. Enough of your lies, Kaminsky. We're gonna win this election and we're coming, right at YOU."
I got a deal for you. We return to the Clinton tax rates after we return to his spending levels. When Clinton left office, he bequethed us a budget of $2 trillion. We're close to $4 trillion now.
Old Soldier| 4.17.12 @ 9:57AM
Notice they never peg those tax rates to inflation?
Ryan| 4.17.12 @ 10:01AM
No one may create wealth on their own, but it's pretty difficult to become wealthy if you believe someone else is going to do it for you.
Small businesses WANT to become wealthy through hard and productive work.
Lower and simplify regulations and taxes.
Stop propping up losing companies and individuals.
A. Fox| 4.17.12 @ 10:04AM
"Good" tell me where you live so I can send you a fish in newspaper!
Anthony| 4.17.12 @ 10:22AM
Hey Teddy, are you Elizabeth Warren from Massachusetts in drag, still up to your class warfare bull?
Actually Teddy, Ms. Warren, took a concept from Edmund Burke, and like all good leftists, bastardized it, just like you Teddy boy.
Yes it does take a "society" in the broader sense for all wealth creation, that's like discovering humans need an atmosphere with oxygen in order to function.
A basic societal structure of fairness and the rule of law is essential for all cultures to grow and prosper, Teddy boy.
Lawlessness can never lead to growth creation, just ask John Gault, or your pals at OWS, who, when not defacing private property, are defacating for freedom!!!
Under Clinton, (other than Monica), due to the fact that Clinton was led by the nose by the R Congress, for his own good, he lowered taxes and proclaimed "The Era of Big Government Is Over".
Some folks will do and say anything to stay a member of the Mile High Club, which was all Clinton cared about.
Now, about you coming right at us, can't wait big boy, my finger is mighty itchy.
al222| 4.17.12 @ 10:40AM
ah, the "it takes a village" argument. good news: they won't have to look very hard to find the village idiot.
Ross Kaminsky | 4.17.12 @ 10:43AM
Ted,
A few points:
1) You are right: I am against a progressive tax system.
2) Everyone should watch this video of a talk by Mart Laar, the former president of Estonia: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7c1ZLRH_gNk
3) Depending on your definition, I might be a millionaire (i.e. in terms of total net worth), but I'm not anywhere near $1MM in income. I'm not even particularly near a fifth of that.
4) What is my "fair share"?
5) I never said that raising taxes on lower income Americans would help the deficit directly. But it would help indirectly by finally making ALL Americans care about the cost of government and no longer tolerate Obama-style waste of taxpayer money.
6) On one hand, it is true that society tends to give a framework within wealth creators can make money. But this doesn't mean that society generated the wealth. Furthermore, and this is what the left always misses, the wealth created benefited society at least as much as it benefited the inventor of the product or service. Unless someone was a criminal, he could only get rich by selling a product or service in a voluntary transaction to someone who found that product or service worth more than the money he parted with to get it. In other words, that person added more value to society than society added to him. It's just that the value added to him ends up more visible because he gets very rich while millions of people get slightly richer (through productivity gains most often, but also possibly through simply being happier, safer, healthier people.)
Put another way, the wealth creators can live without society a lot better than society can live without them. You should thank your lucky stars every day for people who can and do get rich in America. They do not get rich by making you poor.
Al Adab| 4.17.12 @ 12:35PM
By what stretch of the imagination can a progressive tax system be considered fair? To treat one persons property, their income, as somehow different from anothers based solely on its volume violates every principle of equality (and perhaps the 14th equal protection clause) that Americans ostensibly hold dear.
If economic opportunity and expansion is in the national interest, why is it that we choose to penalize it through the tax code? Lincoln said, "That some become rich meqans that others may become rich." JFK touted his tax cuts by noting that "a rising tide lifts all ships". Now the very party that gave rise to him calls that trickle down and laughs because the GOP used it to great effect in the 1980s.
If we want our tax ciode to be "fair" and to encourage economic expansion then we must stop penalizing the very individual successes we claim to encourage. Such policy is counter-productive. It may sell on the political stump, but it harms the nation.
Frank Natoli| 4.17.12 @ 1:51PM
Progressive becomes "fair" when you honestly believe that all income and wealth inequalities are caused by "unfairness". Having convinced yourself of that, to then insist that government not only correct but also punish the "unfairness" is a logical next step.
MikeG| 4.17.12 @ 9:06PM
The only fair tax is a flat rate income tax with an exemption for the first $30,000.
Really?| 4.18.12 @ 1:15PM
It would not be fair, for everyone to pay the same amount of tax, in this nation of equality under the law; for example $5000 per individual, with no exemptions, deductions, ifs, ands, or buts; individuals paying this tax, or not being allowed to vote, no ifs, ands, or buts?
MikeG| 4.18.12 @ 4:33PM
You Really do not know the difference between rate and tax paid? If we exempt the first 30,000, and I make 100,000 I pay 15% of 70,000 or 10.500. If you earn 50,000 you pay 15% of 15,000 or 2250.
Please tell me you made a mistake in reading rate the same as amount.
Really?| 4.18.12 @ 5:09PM
Please tell me you realize the same dollar amount of tax owed for each and every American is the only truly fair amount and is obviously more fair than the same rate of tax for each and every American.
MikeG| 4.18.12 @ 7:08PM
You are Really stupid.
Really?| 4.18.12 @ 8:17PM
Please tell me you realize the same dollar amount of tax owed for each and every American is the only truly fair amount in this land of equality under the law.
sinanju| 4.17.12 @ 3:01PM
Ross, that last sentence of yours sums it up. Progressives honestly believe there really is a fixed pie of "wealth" (notice only liberals use that word) in the world and that anyone who makes a lot of money over their lifetime had to do so by somehow taking it away from everyone else. My own mother told me this on more than one occasion. From what morally bankrupt and disgusting concept do you think the phrase "giving back" came from?
You are dead on that economic literacy has been intentionally drummed out of K-12 and higher education over the last century. How different a country would we be living in even now if Thomas Sowell's "Basic Economics" had been required reading at the senior high school and college levels over the last eleven years since it came out? Or that 1970's classic: "The Incredible Bread Machine" over the last thirty years?
Obama can be trounced on emotional appeals as well as hard facts. In my heart of hearts, I don't think anyone, liberals included, are able to deceive themselves that a millionaires tax is going to end up raising a dime, let alone get the country out of debt. For lack of ideas the attitude is, if there are no solutions and we're all going down then at least let the kulaks be punished. Him of the Soaring Rhetoric is left with nothing to peddle but the politics of despair and resentment and it should be easy to beat him like a drum with a straightforward program and non-wonkish eloquence. Ruthlessly repeated. I do recollect when, I think it was during GWB's 2004 campaign, that JFK's words were dusted off to the screams of the Democrats, who all but claimed that his speeches were somehow copyrighted to them. Well, lather, rinse, repeat. Uncle Teddy is gone now and there are no Kennedys currently in office.
Obama has got to be the biggest, fattest, most comically vulnerable electoral target in American political history and the only thing that worries me is the possibility that Romney (whom we are now apparently stuck with) is dumb enough to think he can somehow smile and charm his way into the Oval office by playing Marquess of Queensberry nicey-nice. It's not necessary to play dirty, just state the facts and keep stating them.
MikeG| 4.17.12 @ 9:05PM
How are you coming at Kanminsky, Teddy?
JayDick| 4.18.12 @ 11:11AM
A simple question: How much is fair? What percentage of their total income should high-income people pay? How would you get that? Would you raise capital gains taxes, even though we know from experience that increasing the capital gains tax lowers revenue?
As with most leftists, you have no clue.
Mike 3/505| 4.17.12 @ 8:26AM
No Ted...You are absolutely wrong. Society doesn't create anything. In fact, society is far more likely to destroy wealth than create it. And you are correct. The "progressive" tax system is nothing more than government sanctioned theft. There is no, repeat NO moral or legal basis for requiring me to pay more for a product or service than someone else does, based on my income. We all pay the same price for a quarter-pounder at Micky D's. Why should I have to pay more for government? Liberals are great at "dressing up" theft.
As to your, "coming for you," line, Bring It.
Old Soldier| 4.17.12 @ 9:58AM
Ted is parroting Elizabeth Warren's ridiculous campaign message.
Clint| 4.17.12 @ 8:53AM
Dr.Ron Paul,
" The Founding Fathers realized that “the power to tax is the power to destroy,” which is why they did not give the Federal government the power to impose an income tax."
Doctor Right| 4.17.12 @ 9:55AM
Clint = Teflon93
Bank on it.
W| 4.17.12 @ 11:08AM
Doc
I am too principled to vote for Romney. Should I stay home, or vote for Gary Johnson, or a write in?
My principles would not allow me to vote for Bob Dole. So what Clinton won and the terrorrists ran free attacking us, and he appointed lefty judges. We had a lot of laughs with Lewinsky. I still have my principles.
My principles would not allow me to vote for Jimmy Carter. So what Carter won, and we got the Dept of Energy and Dept of Education, and Iran got Khomeni, and Iran has sponsored most of the terrorrism since 1979, and Iran attacked our embassy, took our people hostage, and we did zip. I still have my principles.
What is your advice?
W| 4.17.12 @ 11:10AM
Correction: my principles would not allow me to vote for Jerry Ford. See, I really like Jimmy Carter, a great president.
Doctor Right| 4.17.12 @ 12:34PM
You should vote for the ONLY person who can beat Obama in November:
ROMNEY.
Gary Johnson is NOT on the ballot.
As far as our principles are concerned, is 4 more years of Obama "principled"??
I advise to you vote for Romney. I will, and he was NOT my candidate in the Primaries.
Your "principle" is the survival of the nation.
With Romney, we can survive, improve, and prosper. Hell, the economy will start to rebound the MINUTE Romney is declared the winner on election night.
With Obama, we face an uncertain, perilous future.
Do the right thing: Support the guy who's NOT Obama.
Al Adab| 4.17.12 @ 12:36PM
One cannot defeat something with nothing even if the something s destructive of the nation.
W| 4.17.12 @ 12:51PM
Al Adab
I haven't seen you for a while, how are you, everything ok?
Al Adab| 4.17.12 @ 2:21PM
W:
Thanks for the comment. Been rather busy in Court of late. Work gets in the way of these important things.
Dagny Taggert| 4.17.12 @ 2:04PM
I highly doubt the decades-long perfection and adherence to your "principles."
My advice: Either run for office yourself, or do what we all do and make a g.d. choice.
No one likes the"lesser of two evils." Deal with it, we all do.
And what good are your principles if the end result is never voting?
Pompous doosh.
W| 4.17.12 @ 2:10PM
You must be new here, Dagny. You do not recognize satire and sarcasm?
I assume you are voting for Romney. Good.
chuck| 4.17.12 @ 6:32PM
Actually Dagny's been around for years.
Clint| 4.17.12 @ 11:32PM
I Got $1000.00 That Says That's A Lie & Dr. Reich's The Liar, Who Has Played This Game Before.
Aaaand, Dr.Reich's The RINO-CINO,Who Said He'll Vote Fro The Ruling Elites' RINO-CINO Frontman, Mittens Romney.
We Are Being Set Up By The RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges For The Ruling Elites' Frontman Mittens Romney.
These Are The RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges Who Gave Us The Serial Traitor To Conservatism, John McCain Of McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy,McCain-Lieberman,Gang Of 14, Opposing Bush Tax Cuts Of 2001 & 2003,TARP.
Now They Are Trying To Give Us RomneyCare,TARP, Cynical Flip-Flops On Abortion, Gays, Refuses to Sign Pro-Life Pledge, Illegal Immigrants, "Little Chain Saw Al" At Bain, Crony Capitalism Campaign Money Trail.....
Vern Crisler| 4.17.12 @ 12:06PM
Huh, Congress could pass any kind of tax it wanted to. It was restricted only in terms of HOW it could impose taxes (apportionment).
Indy| 4.17.12 @ 9:00AM
The abuse of taxpayer dollars in the GSA scandal is the classic example of why there should be no tax increases. Prove to the taxpayer, that you will cut spending, cut agencies / departments, privatize areas of the government that make sense, TSA as an example...real cuts first and within the first two years, none of this outer year reduced increases tricks.
I am so tired of this class warfare, our nation becomes more divided, we have work to do to educate the public, Buffett is a disgrace, he fights the taxes his company owes, he chooses to be paid in stock instead of salary, instead of paying more taxes, he chooses to give his money to the Gates Foundation because he knows it will be spent better and he can take the deduction. He uses his power to gain from crony capitalism. His company benefits by preventing the Keystone Pipeline...what a hypocrite. His secretary should make her return public if they are going to continue to use it to drive this political agenda. My guess is she is well compensated.
Our tax code needs reform with reducing rates, reducing / eliminating deductions, a pro growth plan is what we need but we will never see it with this Administration.
Way to go media, you continue to divide our Country, a few random acts of journalism please, how about reporting on Fast and Furious?
Von Mises Jr| 4.17.12 @ 9:02AM
Perhaps it was Sowell that told the story about the dog that had a big bone in his mouth, but while staring into the lake, he saw his reflection with what appeared to be an even bigger bone. When he let go to fetch the bigger bone, the real bone sank to the bottom of the lake.
Let's say a small employer has 20 workers that cost $1M per year in salary and burden. If his taxes go up by 30%, he can pay $300K in taxes out of his own pocket, or he can fire six (6) of the 20 employees.
If he knows that his employees voted to raise his taxes, what do you think he will do???
Mike 3/505| 4.17.12 @ 9:54AM
If he knows WHICH of his employees voted to increase his taxes...what do you think he will do? :-)
Von Mises Jr| 4.17.12 @ 10:00AM
That is why we should buy Obama stickers and hand them out for free.
It is like the story I heard about the European authorities taking down signs in airports warning of pick pockets. The thieves put them up so when the people checked for their wallet, the pick pocket knew where it was.
Ryan| 4.17.12 @ 10:03AM
You've pointed to a dynamic that the left really doesn't understand - the fine line that small busineses run, with the owners often being lucky to draw a decent income.
JP| 4.17.12 @ 9:07AM
"A Gallup poll released on Friday suggest that a majority of Americans favor the thinking behind "Buffett Rule," including nearly 63 percent of independent voters (with only 33 percent of independents opposing it.)"
And "polls" in 2009 and 2010 told us that over 55% of voters just adored ObamaCare. These kinds of push-polls have a way of forming news instead of reporting news.
David W| 4.17.12 @ 9:09AM
Unfortunately neither Mitt Romney nor any other GOP (RINO or otherwise) can come up with a decent argument that can get past the MSM crap (since the MSM is basically now an extension of the democratic party the GOP talking points are not getting out).
How will this play out once Mitt is the official nominee? Will Mitt even be able to fight it given his wealth and background? Obama has a perfect foil in Mitt for his class warfare (and it doesn't help that this butthead - and I'm talking Mitt - was going to tear down his house and build an even bigger one. Who gave him that idea? His campaign director who must work for the democrats?).
Indy| 4.17.12 @ 9:28AM
Our tax $ at work, way to go GSA, I listened to a lot of the testimony, and today I go to the post office to mail my check and return, if you are not outraged, you are not a taxpayer.
http://www.therightscoop.com/r.....t-hearing/
Clint| 4.17.12 @ 9:28AM
Dr.Ron Paul,
" An income tax is the most degrading and totalitarian of all possible taxes. Its implementation wrongly suggests that the government owns the lives and labor of the citizens it is supposed to represent. Tellingly, “a heavy progressive or graduated income tax” is Plank #2 of the Communist Manifesto, which was written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels and first published in 1848."
Purp| 4.17.12 @ 11:19AM
And if you do your homework, you would discover it was NEVER ratified. And you worry about birth certificates - LOL!
Ryan| 4.17.12 @ 12:31PM
If you did your homework, you would understand that no argument which states the 16th wasn't ratified stands up - both in courts of law (MULTIPLE times) nor in regular arguments.
Ratified by 42 states (and Ohio WAS a state). Punctuation doesn't matter. Repeal language not necessary.
Ryan| 4.17.12 @ 12:32PM
It may be bad law, but it's law.
Vern Crisler| 4.17.12 @ 12:08PM
An income tax and an "progressive" income tax are not the same thing.
Doctor Right| 4.17.12 @ 12:36PM
Clint = Teflon93
NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.
Oldefarte| 4.17.12 @ 2:18PM
You forgot about The American Hitman also. Clint=Teflon93=TAH!!!!!!!
Clint| 4.17.12 @ 11:40PM
I Got $1000.00 That Says That's A Lie & Dr. Reich's The Liar, Who Has Played This Game Before.
Aaaand, Dr.Reich's The RINO-CINO,Who Said He'll Vote Fro The Ruling Elites' RINO-CINO Frontman, Mittens Romney.
We Are Being Set Up By The RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges For The Ruling Elites' Frontman Mittens Romney.
These Are The RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges Who Gave Us The Serial Traitor To Conservatism, John McCain Of McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy,McCain-Lieberman,Gang Of 14, Opposing Bush Tax Cuts Of 2001 & 2003,TARP.
Now They Are Trying To Give Us RomneyCare,TARP, Cynical Flip-Flops On Abortion, Gays, Refuses to Sign Pro-Life Pledge, Illegal Immigrants, "Little Chain Saw Al" At Bain, Crony Capitalism Campaign Money Trail.....
Mike| 4.17.12 @ 1:53PM
Clint
Do you have any comments of you own without posting what someone else has written?
Clint| 4.17.12 @ 11:36PM
Yea.
I Want To Comment About You Being An Asshole.
" You're An Asshole".
Now, Go Home.
gearjammer| 4.17.12 @ 9:38AM
You must first of all say private capital in private hands is the job and growth engine. Then you have to admit that some are undertaxed due to crazy loopholes. Then, admit some are overpaid because they work in economic models that have no relation to a true free market system. This would include the world of all the rich media stars-holllywood and tv. How does Mat lauer get 25 million selling adult diapers to poor old souls confined to nursing homes ? I mean who is gonna do an analysis of the billions cable etc bring in and the legislation that has put in place to protect those giant piggy banks ? How about Obama's millions fron book deals paid by media conglomerates that he and dems later take care of ? Remember when Gingrich got a big advance ? He had to give it back and go straight royalty. Finally why don't some rich republicans and conservatives take one thenth what idiot stick Obama and company put into Soloyndra and show how much better a job they did for America. Hell, Rush and his iced tea venture created more jobs and tax revenue than the green job idiocy. It takes work and dare I say a de emphasis of the social issue to take this class envy crap on educate the folks and all the rest. And, do not forget Reagan despised the loophole junk that put the rich guy paying less than the assembly line guy picking up ot. But-the loopholes-it is democrats who derive the most from them. There are some games being played. In the end a flatter no loophole system may be the way. But, Congress needs high rates. Then they can shake down the business sector for money and jobs and contracts for their friends and kids. Without that leverage a Congressman or whatever on the make is just a sleazy punk.
Ryan| 4.17.12 @ 10:06AM
I think you are almost right about the loophole situation. I see it differently.
We need to get rid of loopholes AND get rid of the tax environment which necessitates them. Loopholes are often too targeted toward specific companies - which, in a sense, is corporate welfare and a form of technical fascism (in the original sense of the term).
Lowering the tax rate and dropping loopholes levels the playing field and allows for a more free market, with no handicaps nor advantages.
gearjammer| 4.17.12 @ 9:49PM
Right-joe jerk congressman can't shake business down-they insert a semtence or two and a 35 per cent corp rate become zippo.
Indy| 4.17.12 @ 9:55AM
So while the press and Obama are focused on class warfare, what are we missing? I just learned of a new EO - TAS, please shine the light
"Just home from Cartagena, Obama signs an executive order establishing a Presidential “Super Committee” to regulate all domestic development of natural gas resources."
http://www.conservativecommune.....um=twitter
Gary B| 4.17.12 @ 10:21AM
Ross,
In my opinion the most revealing words in your column are these: "...with the unforgiveable passivity of decades of Republicans..."
And that's the problem, isn't it? The Tea Party helps retake the House in 2008 and what do we get? We got what we always get... crickets.
A guy could get cynical.
Gary B| 4.17.12 @ 10:22AM
I mean retake the House in 2010.
Ross Kaminsky | 4.17.12 @ 10:45AM
Gary,
I think the Tea Party influence has been important in the House.
For example, even though many people think that the Paul Ryan budget isn't aggressive enough in cutting spending or reforming entitlements, it is by far the most aggressive thing we've seen in a couple of decades. And it would not have been possible without the Tea Party pushing the House to the right.
I'm not saying everything is great, of course, but winning this war, if we can, is going to be evolutionary rather than revolutionary, as much as many of us would prefer something faster.
Gary B| 4.17.12 @ 11:01AM
Of course, you're right, but wouldn't it be nice to see just one of Darrell Issa's investigations actually go somewhere, or to have Boehner gone?
I've said this before, but conservatives have to be the most consistently betrayed group in the country.
Ross Kaminsky | 4.17.12 @ 11:07AM
Re: Boehner: Who would you replace him with, who is actually fairly senior in the House? (Since no Tea Party freshman could even theoretically be in consideration?)
Purp| 4.17.12 @ 11:17AM
Too bad all those "senior" people are RINOs hey - LOL!
Riff Raff| 4.17.12 @ 11:50AM
"Purp" is having a "senior moment."
Gary B| 4.17.12 @ 12:14PM
Ross,
So, the House is mired in own rules. As Purp says, perhaps all the senior people are establishment types, having gone along to get along all these years. And, isn't that the problem?
My kingdom for a promise-keeper...
Frank Natoli| 4.17.12 @ 1:22PM
http://rsc.jordan.house.gov/AboutRSC/
Click, and ye shall find.
Peter McGrath| 4.17.12 @ 10:59AM
I wonder how "my" senator from Florida, Bill Nelson, voted (or did he vote) on this repulsive piece of legislation.
Ross Kaminsky | 4.17.12 @ 11:07AM
He voted for it, along with every Democrat except Pryor (who voted against) and Akaka (who didn't vote, but would be for it.)
Jack London| 4.17.12 @ 11:11AM
Ross,
at the end of the day you just keep on trying to justify the indefensible - rich people paying lower tax rates that the middle class, and a continuation of tax loopholes for low tax on unearned income. Capital gains were taxed the same as income under Reagan.
I guess you see no danger at all in increasing inequality yet further from it's already huge gap. Do you see no downside at all in the continuing concentration of wealth in the few?
By the way, you didn't reply to the point I made a few weeks ago about Christina Romer's paper - which you were wrong about. She saud:
'But it’s important to note that our study did not distinguish among tax cuts for different groups and did not focus on high-income earners. Thus, it provides no basis for doubting the compelling evidence that tax cuts for high-income earners are less effective than broad-based tax cuts focused on the middle class.....'
Purp| 4.17.12 @ 11:15AM
Yep they are just dopes. What conservative wouldn't love to see that NBA and MLB players have to pay 20 percent more in taxes. Who wouldn't love seeing those Hollywood Elites pay a few million each year in taxes.
In fact all income over 125,000K should be taxed at 90 percent. If you don't want to pay it, you are not patriotic.
Screw the rich!
Karl M| 4.17.12 @ 12:11PM
Very well put, Comrade. We need more like you in CPUSA.
From the Desk of Media Matters| 4.17.12 @ 12:39PM
Penelope-Jacquelina Jacquelina-Penelope Rachel-Keisha Sissy-Edwina Matthews-Maddow Schultz-Olbermann Pelosi-Moscow Moscow-Pelosi Two Indistinguishable Panytwaste-Pansies,
Even our other bottom rung MM mindless retarded parrots have given up hope that MM can change the narrative by transforming the conversation away from the record of The Anointed One Who Everyone Has Waited For Who Make No Mistake Makes Himself Be Perfectly Clear He Is Focused Like A Laser Who Will Not Rest While Solving With A Silver Bullet For Each And Every Problem Facing The United Despite The Class Warfare Of The United Fifty-Eight States Of America Including The Fundamental Flaws Of The Constitution Who Is Not Going To Make Any Excuses In The Process All While Halving The Deficit Before His Reelection.
Even our other bottom rung MM mindless retarded parrots have given up hope that you two specimens of humanoid perversion can change your ability to effectively argue for conservatism by exposing the intellectually dishonest depravity of liberalism as well as anyone else at American Spectator.
- MM staff
Oldefarte| 4.17.12 @ 2:14PM
And F&*K you! Hollywood types are not Elites, but are STUPID SCRIPT READERS BEFORE A CAMERA! Several of same recently [and historically] have been in the news for income tax evasion, and as such, the government should toss their stupid a%ses in jail [if for no other reason than their being dumba$Ses who barely can read and write yet earn millions $ from stupids that attend and pay humongous prices for their worthless non-movies. Instead of your asinine opinion, what should be done is for the worthless indigents to be weaned off of governmental welfare forever and forced to work for their financial living instead of forcing taxpayers to pay for their food, clothing, shelter, transportation, education from cradle to grave. Additionally anyone birthing children that they can't personally pay to living expenses for until 18 years of age should be jailed until they agree to support their offspring. CASE CLOSED!!!!!!!
chuck| 4.17.12 @ 6:37PM
Purp,
Actually, jackass, most of us here don't give a rat's ass how much or how little any individual pays in taxes, except of course, our own.
Doctor Right| 4.17.12 @ 12:42PM
The most prosperous societies have the LARGEST income gaps.
Not surprisingly, these societies are also the FREEST societies.
That's because wealth and freedom go hand-in-hand.
In a fee society, where market principles predominate, people can choose to achieve great things and become prosperous (meaning MANY things), or they can choose to sit on their asses and scrape by.
There's NO moral argument for making people who are wealthy pay taxes at a higher rate than anyone else. The motive for such a rule is ultimately ALWAYS envy.
As far as Christina Romer is concerned...she's the plu-perfect example of the left-wing economist. Who cares what she thinks?? Has she ever created a job in her life?
Kingofthenet| 4.17.12 @ 2:05PM
Freedom(of the type you describe) and $1.50 will buy you a cup of coffee, whta is so wrong about how they live in Sweden or Denmark or Germany?
Al Adab| 4.17.12 @ 4:48PM
Sorry King, coffee is up to 2.39 where I am. You raise a good question though. Does this society still value freedom or have we come to prefer the government check even without it?
Oldefarte| 4.17.12 @ 2:29PM
Romer? Shazam what a source! Bottom line is that the income that the rich receive is due to their hard work and intelligence and as such should be rightfully maintained by them and not forcibly given to the government. It is their income, they EARNED it [the government did NOT EARN IT] and for the government to STEAL IT FROM THE RICH OR ANY OTHER TAXPAYER IS A CRIME. It's called governmental theft and government should be downsized-reduced accordingly to reduce the need for this unnecessary theft of others' incomes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ross Kaminsky | 4.17.12 @ 3:23PM
Jack,
A few rich people paid low tax rates, but I would be that most of that in the past two years is due to huge loss carryforwards from the recession.
Most upper income people pay higher interest rates than lower income people.
Passing laws which impact everyone because you're jealous of a few has always proven to be a very bad idea (which should have been known in advance.)
No, I see no danger from "increasing inequality" as long as it doesn't happen the way it does in kleptocracies.
Since so much tax revenue comes from so few, the implications of Romer's paper's results for upper income people doesn't strike me as different from the results overall.
1ConservativeUSA| 4.17.12 @ 11:17AM
The real shame, in addition to the economic illiteracy of many Americans, is that many Americans actually accept and engage in this false argument.
Our core problems are profligate government spending and oppressive government overreach.
Yet, the left (heavily assisted by the media) has been masterful in distracting gullible (and not so gullible) Americans into thinking the problem and solution lies in the tax law.
Gary B| 4.17.12 @ 12:27PM
Yes, the left has convinced the masses that everyone paying the same percentage, say, 20% is somehow unfair. You make $50,000, you pay $10,000 in taxes. You make $250,000, you pay $50,000 in taxes.
We're not talking about fairness. We're talking about jealously. "How dare that rich SOB has so much left after taxes!"
Republicans need to reframe the argument and pound home the concept of fairness, as understood by every sixth grader. Then they need to pound home the concept of incentive, as expressed in both the real world and in the tax code.
Here's some real-world incentive. "If I stay home and only do odd jobs for cash, the government will send me a check. And, if I keep knocking up my girlfriends, the government will send them even more money for each additional child."
Here's another example... "If risk my hard-earned, already-taxed savings in a business venture and it's successful, I'll be taxed (again) at a rate lower than the rate for ordinary income."
Jack London| 4.17.12 @ 12:39PM
How is it fair for a wealthy few such as Romney to pay much lower income tax rates than others?
Doctor Right| 4.17.12 @ 12:45PM
"Fairness" is a subjective term.
Today, it's "fair" for the wealthy to pay 50%...tomorrow, 60%...next week...who knows??
I don't think it's "fair" that 50% of this country pays NO income tax, but receives continuous goodie-bags of tax-payer funded welfare subsidies.
It's time for the poor to start paying their "fair share".
Gary B| 4.17.12 @ 12:52PM
Jack,
Your argument is too general. One must look at the various types of income a wealthy person like Romney earns. The tax code specifies various rates for different types of income received by any taxpayer. And, regardless of the amount, he pays the same rates on the same type of income anyone else. Comparing Buffett's capital gain rate against his secretary's ordinary income rate is apples and oranges. This is a detail liberals hope you don't ask about.
And, don't forget, although the size of the investment may be, everyone with a retirement account is an investor, too. Many of us are also investors in that evil, devil-workshipping company called Coca Cola.
Jack London| 4.17.12 @ 1:41PM
Gary, personal income is personal income – no society can hope to pull together if an elite are allowed to use loopholes to open the gap further with the bulk fo the population, stifling social mobility yet more (which is already shockingly low here compared with most European countries).
From the Desk of Media Matters| 4.17.12 @ 1:52PM
Penelope Jacquelina Pelosi Maddow,
Our other bottom rung MM mindless retarded parrots are distracted from their assigned tasks because of the office pool predicting when you will use for the thousandth time as an example Sweden - the country with the lowest religious faith among developed countries also with the highest suicide rate that is the ideal epitome of socialism that has already privatized their industries and is now currently attempting tax cuts in order to sustain themselves.
You are an embarrassment to enlightened society.
- MM staff
Ryan| 4.17.12 @ 2:08PM
You won't hear conservatives argue against closing loopholes - which are anti-free market.
Lower taxes overall so the need for loopholes isn't there. Let the free market work.
Kingofthenet| 4.17.12 @ 2:06PM
Tell YOUR boss you want to paid in capital Gains, simple.
W| 4.17.12 @ 8:12PM
King,
You have a good idea. Tax all income at a flat rate of 15%. Now we distinguish between types of income to determine its tax rate. Your boss does not determine the status of income , IRS does.
Oldefarte| 4.17.12 @ 2:06PM
It is fair since the 20% CG tax rate is a supplemental/secondary taxiation. If an individual has high income and pays 30% tax rate on same, then uses his residual income after the 30% to invest and to earn investment income from same, the 20% tax rate is paid on top of the original 30% from his salaried-paycheck. He should not have to pay ANY taxes on his investment income since it is in addition to his already paying taxes [30%] on his high income salary. Got it now? Oh and additionally the top 20% of income earners pay 90% of all income taxes, so thats another reason why it is unfair and UNJUSTIFIED!!!!!!!!!
Ross Kaminsky | 4.17.12 @ 3:27PM
Again, it is a FEW who pay lower rates. Furthermore, Romney's rate was lowered by huge donations to charity.
Also, how is it fair for some people to pay ZERO federal income tax while others pay millions? Don't we all get the benefit of the military and other constitutional functions of government?
Here's the actual data to refute the left's contention that the rich generally pay lower rates than the middle class:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/n.....ge-agi-low
Kingofthenet| 4.17.12 @ 6:46PM
Ok and those of us who want REALITY:
http://motherjones.com/politic.....hart-graph
Really?| 4.18.12 @ 1:20PM
It goes without saying, when you absolutely need a source for reality, that no one would ever think to question, it's a undebatable no-brainer, you go straight to Mother Jones?
Butch| 4.17.12 @ 5:04PM
It's very unfair. Poor Romney paid a lower rate because all his income was investment income and capital gains.
Now, where did his investment money come from? He earned it as income. And he paid the highest income-tax rate at that time. His income had ALREADY been taxed!
It IS unfair to Romney to tax the returns on his already-once-taxed earned wealth.
Kingofthenet| 4.17.12 @ 8:08PM
Well first off Capital Gains is just that, it's NOT re-taxing principal but just...wait for it..THE GAINS, so no double tax, second it's not even that Mitt, NEVER earned this money as regular income, see the outrage?
Jennifer| 4.18.12 @ 4:25PM
He's not paying an "income" tax, he's paying exactly the same long-term capital gains rate poor little me does because BOTH of us are getting taxed on investments on top of earned income. And we're BOTH supporting useless sponges who don't pay any taxes at all.
Kingofthenet| 4.17.12 @ 12:40PM
The Conservatives prefer the 'Reverse Robin Hood' where we take from the poor and give to the rich. Get over it, the 99% aren't gonna let you Fat Cats hide behind the skirt of some little old lady who has a few thousand in Capital Gains, she gets to keep her deduction, not you, anything over 100k in Capital Gains or Carried interest is going to be charged at least 30%.
KingoftheIdiots| 4.17.12 @ 12:51PM
World Ends - Poor Hit Hardest
Gary B| 4.17.12 @ 12:55PM
World ends - The wealthy taxed out of existance. Business owners toss in the towell. Jobs disappear.
KingoftheIdiots| 4.17.12 @ 1:15PM
World Ends - 99% Hit Hardest - As Top 1% Are Finally And Justly Taxed Fairly Through The Buffet Rule But Then Just Pass Along Their Fair Share Amount Of Higher Taxes To The 99% Just The Same As The Top 1% Pass Their Highest Corporate Tax Rates In The Developed World To The 99% Who Are Hit Hardest - The 99% Hit Hardest But Only Slightly More Hard Hit Than Minorities - And Women - And Homosexuals.
Brad| 4.17.12 @ 8:24PM
Knaveofthenet:
YOU prefer the current "Reverse Robin Hood" system where the government takes from the producers to keep for itself (GSA, Obambi's non-stop vacationing, ect.)
Robin Hood did not "take from the rich to give to the poor". I actually read the story, you idiot!
Robin Hood TOOK FROM THE OPPRESSIVE GOVERNMENT (as in PRINCE (not CEO) John, the SHERIFF (not BANKER) of Nottingham, and various TAX COLLECTORS (not working men and women))!
But I don't expect someone as economically illiterate as you are to be able to read classic works, anyway.
Frank Natoli| 4.17.12 @ 1:16PM
When asked in 2008 about whether he would raise capital gains taxes even if it doesn't raise revenue, he said yes "for purposes of fairness."
Not exactly. I recall, perhaps mistakenly, that Charlie Gibson did not pose an "even if" hypothetical as written above. Gibson directly noted that when the capital gains rate was lowered in the Clinton Administration, it raised revenues derived from capital gains, and that when the capital gains rate was lowered further in the Bush 43 Administration, it further raised revenues derived from capital gains. And still Obama insisted that "fairness" required a raise in the rates.
Everybody with a room temperature or better IQ knows that the Left has hijacked the language, far more effectively than Orwell imagined in "1984". So "fair" now means screwing everybody. Screw the "rich" because "they deserve it". And screw the intended beneficiaries of the more "fair" tax code, by in fact lowering revenues, because they too deserve it?
I think I'm going to light a very big Mass candle and pray that our putative nominee makes this point at some debate.
Gary B| 4.17.12 @ 1:23PM
Just received from a friend. "Apparently, I'm supposed to be more concerned about what Romney does with his money than what Obama does with mine."
How about we just ransack Romney's house. And, while we're at it, how 'bout we loot some wealthy liberals' houses, too. That's fair, isn't it?
Kingofthenet| 4.17.12 @ 1:37PM
Well the wealthy liberals, most likely made their money in entertainment, Movies and Music. The ONLY entertainment Mitt Romney could provide us, is having him eviscerated and disemboweled on the roof of his car by a low hanging wire.
LiveFreeOrDie| 4.17.12 @ 4:15PM
"...wealthy liberals, most likely made their money in entertainment"
You are absolutely right, liberals aren't known for leading productive lives.
Oldefarte| 4.17.12 @ 1:57PM
Ross, I'm going to respectfully disagree with you ever so slightly if permitted. IMHO, it's more a question of Democrat politicians than it is lower income individuals voting for their increased governmental benefits. Democrat politicians hypocritically use the lower/impoverished classes for their own personal selfish reasons, by legislating governmental welfare to them and then in quid-pro-quo fashion demanding their loyalty votes for Democrat politicians in return. These Democrat politicians proclamate such terminology as FAIRNESS and THE RICH SHOULD PAY MORE TAXES [wealth ridistribution] in a governmental forced charitable giving to the downtrodden appeal. Since taxpayers are under a legal threat [think Eric Holder and his D of J] to comply with tax bills legislated, these Democrat political leaders basically ROB FROM THE RICH TO GIVE TO THE POOR in Robin Hood style. In essence, these Democrats are ..........CROOKS WHO STEAL! Again, these Democrat politicians do so in order to increase the numbers-ranks of Democrats elected and therefore to obtain and maintain political power through this wealth redistrubution scheme. I have said it a thousand times and I'll repeat it once again.......IT'S THE DEMOCRATS, STUPIDS!!!!!!!
Ross Kaminsky | 4.17.12 @ 3:28PM
Olde,
I guess I'd say they're two sides of the same coin.
And of course disagreement is permitted...indeed, it is encouraged!
I always appreciate your comments, whether you agree with me or not.
The Rifleman| 4.17.12 @ 2:01PM
It's sad that so many Americans know so little about true free market economics and the Constitution. This ignorance is how liberals (Dems) have pushed so many of their left-wing/socialist policies. As someone once said you'd never go broken underestimating the intelligence of the American people...
Kingofthenet| 4.17.12 @ 2:08PM
...or go broke counting on Conservatives to sell-out their own personal interest. Geroge Soros tips his hat to you SUCKERS
Kingofthenet| 4.17.12 @ 2:10PM
All you need to know:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/wa.....de-is-over
Brad| 4.17.12 @ 8:25PM
All you need to know:
DON'T take The Dumbass...er...Daily Show seriously...
Slacker| 4.17.12 @ 2:23PM
Don’t get hot and bothered over class war saber rattling. This is dogs barking through the fence. Don’t kid yourselves; neither side has the stones for a real fight and they mostly agree anyway. The collapse will be slow but sure and very boring.
Thom| 4.17.12 @ 4:27PM
"The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all."
Given JFK was a Kennedy and his youngest brother Edward knew millions of ignorant voters in Mass; one is left taking such statements at face value. Never the less this is a universally true statement. We get a daily dose of the proof of this across the Media landscape. The latest manufactured "race" crisis and its completely disproportionate importance in the scheme of related matters is just the latest example of an ignorant society being manipulated for political purposes. Everyone is ultimately at risk from this.
Every two years, four or eight at the most an objective observer would have to conclude that the voters in this country were bused in from a different planet given their tendencies for split personality disorder. A substantial portion of the electorate can't articulate a substantive reason for the vote they cast and most are willfully ignorant of what the candidate they vote for actually stands for. Many simply don't care as long as they wear the same "colors" as they march behind. The wild swing in Congressional and State elections in 2010 reflects just how ignorant a portion of the electorate was in 2008 and 2006.
A long time ago, between 1970 and 1980 when there were still people in the Education field dedicated to the concept of an "education", a person noted that the US has the most "over schooled" population on the planet but were otherwise "uneducated" on balance. During this time I found myself having to take entrance exams at a 4 year local college despite having both a High School diploma and AAS two year degree from local schools. The college I was "accepted" at had a reputation of 70% failure rates in its English department. This turned out to not be a myth. A substantial portion of the "poor students" as defined by the government at the time ended up having to take remedial courses before starting the regular course work and still most flunked out of the school within a year. Today, standards have been reduced to the extent in many schools that a degree from a college is now suspect by employers as was my high school diploma back 30 years ago. My transcripts aren't sealed like so many of today's "smartest and brightest" which begs a couple questions given the lack of competence we see paraded in the Media today and their similarly "degreed" objects of their worship.
Walther Williams not long ago wrote a piece asking if the "Black Community" had contempt for Liberty? I wrote him pointing out that while I understood his point it might be hard for much of his target audience to understand the concept of "Liberty" and have contempt for it since the bulk of them had never fought for or defended the concept of "Liberty". Like most things in life, the value one associates with it is usually directly related to the "cost" of obtaining it. Much of American society at large today has "contempt" for the Founding principles of this Republic thus the foundation of that is being "uneducated" while being convinced that all that "free" Public schooling and subsidized college equals being "educated". Indeed, even some writers at TAS use the term "educated" as a pejorative to separate those that have a "weight of paper" schooling from those lesser “uneducated” folks.
Some of the most educated people in history never set foot in a "university". Some of the most ignorant today have multiple degrees from $40,000 a year schools. My degrees didn’t make me an educated person. Life did.
One of the virtues of a truly educated person is that they can tell the difference between the truth and a lie. They accept they can be wrong. An ignorant person, regardless of schooling has contempt for anything that challenges the world they've built around their ignorance. Repeated failures of their world view don't influence their views. An ignorant mind can be manipulated for just about any purpose. The "tribe" is paramount; the truth is an external threat.
The rampant ignorance of our electorate is partly the byproduct of a dysfunctional "education system" with no accountability on one hand and partly the end result of letting people "vote themselves largesse from the public treasury" at no cost to themselves. The baser side of human nature takes over from there and Ignorance is bliss for many.
Every Democracy that has allowed this has failed. JFK was right; an ignorant electorate is a threat to the security of all. You need only to turn on the "news" or read a local Newspaper to see ignorance on parade 24/7.
That same JFK said, "a rising tide lifts all boats". Quoting that to a Marxist-Democrat today would be the equivalent of showing a Vampire a Cross. Between the institutionalized envy in our tax policies and educated ignorance via our Government School system and subsidized colleges this republic is doomed on its present course. It isn’t just economic ignorance on parade but that is enough to kill the American Dream. No republic will stand when government becomes a spoils system for a majority at the expense of a minority. That's been the path we've been on since 1913. I don’t see “good men” willing to stand and fight on principle any longer.
randyinrocklin| 4.17.12 @ 4:59PM
how is it that these progressive income tax rates is constitutional under Equal Protection under the law?
Minuteman78| 4.17.12 @ 5:03PM
'Fairness' to Dumbocrats has nothing to do with math. It means they get to take money from people who won't vote for them and give it to those who will. Welfare queens, illegal immigrants, ignorant Union workers, just plain lazy slobs, etc...
Cynicon Implant| 4.17.12 @ 5:32PM
Another excellent article Ross!
Since progressives removed economic literacy from our schools, we need to replace it with something else.
Let's have the Republican party make a series of TV ads that are designed to educate people on issues of taxation -- cutting taxes often raises revenues, etc. And broadcast them during the network news shows. Romney at the microphone. Just facts. And make the point that we are telling you this because the left has been lying to you for 50+ years.
Pat| 4.17.12 @ 5:35PM
Any city, state or nation can certainly tax itself back to prosperity. And if you concentrate hard enough, you can also levitate yourself 3 feet off the carpet and visualize next week’s winning numbers in 11 separate state lotteries. But as the French Revolution taught all Harvard undergrad students, you can hate the rich so much the system will be forced to change and then “everyone gets everything for free”.
However, most of us would prefer to skip the revolutionary violence phase and go straight to our new system of government, scoot quickly past GO, collect our $200 and avoid the guillotine. And many of us suspect we as a nation are presently close to the edge but we’re keeping our collective fingers crossed we’ll avoid the fire next time and live out the remainder of our lives under American Socialism’s nicer twin brother.
But in any theoretical dream state for a New America, I advocate a Living Constitution which requires, among other things, taxing the poor – specific language to that effect, no loopholes, no possibility of amendment and jail time for anyone who attempts to add bizarre tax credits for the poor to the tax regs. Back in the 60’s, only 18% of Americans didn’t pay income taxes so look how far we’ve come, baby. Tax Freedom Day for us folks who actually pay taxes inches steadily toward December, 31st each year and we know America’s present psychotic episode can’t last for much longer.
So, time to re-think the Poor Tax and its many benefits to and for our nation. Everyone pays something, rich or poor, no exceptions – our Treasury would accept tax payments in currency, community service time, blood donations, spare human organs or surrogate motherhood – but you must give up something of value in order to vote. Sounds harsh by today’s mentally unbalanced standards but silent dancing to your IPOD while waiting in that long line for your turn at the guillotine is far harsher.
RichTex| 4.17.12 @ 6:43PM
Anyone know how this came up first in the Senate anyhow, considering Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution? Any Senator voting to bring up this bill for consideration is really voting to discard the Constitution.
Gary B| 4.17.12 @ 10:01PM
Discarding the Constitution is something both parties do every day in DC. Deceit is their stock in trade.
Frank Natoli| 4.17.12 @ 10:15PM
The reason we needed a constitutional amendment to allow Congress to enact an income tax is because the Founders could not conceive of taxing anything other than consumption. They didn't think it was "fair" to do otherwise.
What about someone's cost to society? Wouldn't it be "fair" to tax someone on the basis of their cost? Everything today is backwards. People get exemptions for each dependent, but in fact each dependent is an additional cost to the taxpayer. Is that "fair"?
OK, let's tax income, i.e., self sufficiency. The more self sufficient someone is, the more we punish them.
How about a fixed amount per person? Wouldn't that be "fair"?
Once you tax by percent, you're suggesting that one person paying two, five, ten, a hundred, a million times more than someone else is "fair". Not in my dictionary.
And the ultimate reductio ad absurdum is progressive tax rates, where is where we are today.
phil| 4.17.12 @ 11:23PM
Ross Kaminski
Thank You for another thought provoking article, after reading and skim reading the comments it seem that the enormity of the words "deduct charitable contributions" in your description of the buffet rule deserves a deeper discussion. While this exclusion of taxable income is used by almost everyone that has an income that is taxable, the degree that is used by wealthy individuals to promote their ideology and other agendas is little understood. If these individuals are truly charitable, why is their donation conditioned on it's deductibility? The answer in many cases is that it allows the individual to retain more money than the donation [after taxes]. Even a progressive could agree that it's not fair to the other taxpayers making up the difference. How would you guess Warren Buffet is planning his estate to keep his wealth from being taken for government spending. His wealth will be spent by a small private board of unelected individuals on whatever THEY decide is good.
Ross Kaminsky | 4.17.12 @ 11:35PM
Phil,
A few points:
First, I could live with removing the deductibility of charitable contributions in exchange for lowering the tax rate.
Second, I don't think the donation is conditioned on deductibility, but clearly the charities like it because it allows/encourages bigger gifts.
Third, there is nothing wrong with unelected people spending private money. It's better than elected individuals spending public money!
Ted R.| 4.17.12 @ 11:33PM
Mr. Ross,
It would clarify things if Romney actually campaigned for a flat tax; we could then better appreciate the trade-off between low taxes and government services. This is something which conservatives have tried very hard to obscure, with their free-lunch supply-side arguments. If you think smaller government is really what the average American wants, why not be unequivocal about it? Then again, I guess, Rep. Ryan is getting there... which is helping the public to have its choice of tax-and-service regime clarified. But you know, somehow I doubt that you folks at AmSpec are going to respect the political verdict, once the Romney-Ryan ticket goes down in defeat.
You base your argument against the progressive taxation system, squarely upon Econ 101's Homo Economicus view of human social relations. It's valid as far as it goes, but liberals are convinced - for very good reasons - that that model's view of human nature and human community is inadequate to actual lived experience, and does not conduce to the greatest good for the greatest number.
Just for starters, like most all conservatives, your model of how an individual gets rich, i.e. by providing surplus value to those he makes voluntary transactions with, is too abstract to carry water for your policy preferences. Just on the level of the theory itself, the idea of 'surplus value' is a mere theoretical construct which deliberately neglects opportunity costs. Those also are part of the exchange.
Beyond that, of course, the Econ 101 theoretical model entirely neglects negative externalities and other kinds of market failure, as well as the positive externalities afforded by the distribution of resources by democratic political coordination rather than through the market. The Homo Economicus view of human nature neglects the very complicated structure of preferences and payoffs that actual human beings living in an incredibly complicated market economy have. This is the very reason why even a conservative political economist like Hayek was interested in psychology, as a core part of his theoretical approach. In recent years, much work has been done in game theory, illustrating how impoverished and self-serving conservatives' views of human beings are.
In the example, above, of how an individual becomes rich, abstracts completely away from his concrete life circumstances: of all the unearned social capital that he relied on to be able to be in the position of being a capitalist, and of the unearned differential benefits of a system of private property generally. Private property is not a fact of nature; it is an artifact of the rule of law. To deny that is simply to ignore the massive evidence of human experience in history. Many of the wealthy of earlier ages, occupied that position because of the "merit" of their ancestors going out and seizing by force what they wanted. And to think that yet today, people are in no way the beneficiaries (or the victims) of the distribution of resources earlier generations, is just naive (if not, again, simply cynical).
Liberals are NOT saying that what is yours, is mine. We are saying that the society as a corporate body gets to define WHAT 'property' IS; and that it is illegitimate to define property in such a way that prevents everyone from having an equal opportunity to exercise their energies and materially prosper by through merit.
As a person benefiting from the equal dignity of equal freedom, there is no reason why any of my fellow citizens have greater baseline opportunity to strive and succeed, than I do. I'm not calling for a stakeholder society, where everyone gets the same average inheritance; all I'm calling for is that resources be redistributed, so that: 1) negative externalities are minimized, 2) everyone have the same educational opportunities, and 3) everyone have insurance against the worst of life's contingencies - those relating to our personal health. Without distribution towards these ends, a mockery is being made of our individual dignity.
That's all I see from this site everyday: People with NO moral imagination, making a mockery of our equal dignity, just so's they can have theirs. It's galling to the core; and it is why we fight.
Ross Kaminsky | 4.17.12 @ 11:38PM
Ted,
I don't have time for a response as detailed as your comment deserves. I will work on a response over the next few days and post it as a blog note on the AmSpec blog.
(I'm out all day tomorrow so it won't be tomorrow.)
You will not be surprised to know that I think you are wrong in almost all important philosophical points, and that your view leads inevitably to tyranny.
One short point: the idea that NOT redistributing insults our dignity is a shocking claim. It is the redistribution which insults the dignity of the victim and the recipient.
Riff Raff| 4.18.12 @ 1:00AM
Mr. Kaminsky,
"LEADS to tyranny"?! Ted R.'s paragraph #7 is a working definition OF tyranny. The only way for government to provide such things is for government to confiscate all wealth and property and distribute it according to Ted R.'s priorities. Anything short of that will not address his goals. It is shocking that someone ostensibly raised in this country could think such a thing. ["Freedom is Slavery, and Slavery is Freedom!"]
"Moral imagination?!" "Equal dignity?!" This is the vocabulary of the Caesars. Tyranny always leads to collapse and it will not be tolerated in this country. Ted R. may promise to "fight," but he fights the evil fight, for evil purposes, supporting evil men. We are FREE, Ted R. And you will not take our freedom from us.
Ted R.| 4.18.12 @ 10:30PM
What I'm calling for is for the standard Social Democratic welfare-state political economy. It is simply a lie to call places like Canada or Germany tyrannies. This is a perfect example of the Big Lie of the Right.
We could build a decent welfare state, with fairer levels of taxation (at least a return to Clinton-era tax levels), and with lower military spending. YES, it IS all about the equal dignity of genuine equal opportunity; to be against that IS evil.
Riff Raff| 4.18.12 @ 11:37PM
Horse manure. Smoke and mirrors. Econ double speak.
We USED to have a decent welfate state, and it was entirely local. Massive welfare programs managed and funded at the federal level is completely UN manageable and inherently corrupt. The Romans called it Panem et Circenses. I call it institutionalized corruption and vote buying with other people's money. To promote such corruption is evil.
And as for Canada and Germany, they have healthy CAPITALIST economies to support a very limited welfare system.
R is for Repugnant| 4.18.12 @ 1:42PM
The 55 million aborted American persons not benefiting from any equal dignity of any equal freedom find it galling to the core there is any reason why they as fellow citizens do not have any baseline opportunity to strive and succeed, particularly when you do, and with little moral imagination wait for the time when the man with the inflated sense of self-importance, and martyr complex besides, whose death served no purpose, at all, judges the gall of the mockery of equal dignity and equal freedom you have displayed during your life of supporting tyranny over the liberty of others.
Just for starters, it would clarify for everdday readers of this site the direction this nation has taken to discover you are a public union member tenured teacher.
Ted R.| 4.18.12 @ 10:41PM
The insistence on abortion rights is ultimately of a piece with the same obsession with personal freedoms that makes millions carp about being "taxed enough already" when their taxation rates are lower than they've been in seventy years. It's this libertarian strain in our national life, rather than the liberals' insistence on social justice, that has created the "right" to abort the unborn.
I think it's amusing that you fixate on my nonbelief; maybe it's really getting on your conscience. At least, it proves my view that religion in America is ultimately only about politics and control. I know that if you Theocrats ever succeed in creating your Christian Republic, I'll be the first against the wall.
The Theocrat's typical fear of intellect is on display once again, with your swipe against public school teachers. Fact is that that is an extremely hard job, and people like you could not hack it. Fact is also that I am not teaching your children, nor do I belong to a union. But you can believe whatever personal fantasies you dream up. The fact that you're Christian is evidence enough of that.
R is for Repugnant| 4.19.12 @ 12:50PM
repugnant:
arousing disgust or aversion; offensive or repulsive; contradictory, incompatible, or inconsistent with logic
Over a lengthy period of time spanning years here at AmSpec you have been presented with Pascal's wager by many commentators, and by C.S. Lewis's 'Lord, liar, or lunatic' apologetic by many others. Yet just this Easter you commented:
"Who do I say he was? Jesus of Nazareth was a well-intentioned , often insightful man, who (like many gurus) had an inflated sense of self-importance (and, he probably had a martyr complex, besides).
For sure, he didn't deserve to die; his execution served no purpose. At all."
These are the words of a person who is not very bright.
Over the lengthy comment you expound on equal dignity and equal freedom, and on baseline opportunity to strive and to succeed, the denial of which is galling to the core. Yet in response to 55 million created equal who are denied this you commented:
"This insistence on abortion rights is ultimately of a piece with the same obsession...that has created the "right" to abort the unborn."
These are the words of a person who is not very bright.
Over the lengthy period of time spanning years you have expounded with nonsense based on feelings. Yet you consistently demonstrate an inability to understand intellectually honest arguments on a consistent basis:
"That's all I see from this site everyday: People with NO moral imagination, making a mockery of our equal dignity, just so they can have theirs. Its galling to the core ; and it is why we fight."
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to congress expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
- James Madison
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry, and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits enjoyed by it."
- Thomas Jefferson
Your consistent demonstrations consistently demonstrate that you are not very bright.
"At least, it proves my view that that in Religion in America is ultimately only about politics and control."
"Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
- George Washington
"Providence has given our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of a Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."
- John Jay
Your consistent demonstrations consistently demonstrate demonstratively with consistency that you are not very bright.
"The nuclear family and religion have gone into decline because personal freedom is more important than these things. Anyway, Liberals haven't won until we have a clean environment , universal health care, and higher public education. We are never going to quit, until our country lives up to the true meaning of its creed: that there be TRUE equal opportunity for ALL."
You are not very bright.
"You are wasting your limited time. The grave is the end."
If you are wrong, how much of your limited time, during all of eternity, that lasts forever, will you waste, contemplating on all the equal opportunity, available to all, to strive and succeed, you've wasted?
You are not very bright.
gearjammer| 4.18.12 @ 10:01AM
Sheldon Whitehouse is a loon as are majority of RI voters. We are going broke here. Soon Providence the capital city is gonna be belly up-all those union pensions and benefits and priviledged contractors and vendors and so much more. They need another bailout all these machine states and cities in the guise of a stimulus whatever. We pissed through the tobacco settlement money to keep the ship afloat a few years, not much for those smokers the dems claim to care so much about. Sheldon as AG went after paint companies with the lead paint bs-agallon of paint would cost 500 dollars if he'd been successful. The dems are all nuts and desparate. It all about money-they need all the money-all of it. By the way for many the Bush cuts just helped them pay for increased state taxes. My liberal friends finally see the light as their home values decrease and taxes go uo and the unions bosses just snarl and hiss at them. I rub it in big time-" you voted for this, this is what you believe in, enjoy". I openly taunt them. They do not like me so much-which is fine-they all suck.
Jennifer| 4.18.12 @ 4:18PM
Hey, I'm in that bottom group (
POST American| 4.19.12 @ 1:09AM
"You've got to realize, whenever
they talk about higher degrees and
esoteric studies in 'e--CON--nomics'
you're looking at a CON. Economics
afterall is nothing more than simple
mathematics."
AMEN
Meanwhile, one and all should get on
those latest revelations of capstone
'MAY--SIN--Re's' long and deep stealth
links to -------------ISLAM!
"In fact, when King Philip condemned
the Templars for being stealth muslim
converts he MAY have been right.
In fact ---ALLLLL--- the rituals of capstone
masonry are islamic in character and origin.
The NEO-CONs, who are reaqlly nothing more
than a bunch of capstone Trotskyists who
realized their NWO could NOT be brought
in without a religious component are going
to use MASS immigration and MASS conversion
to bring it on. Paris is now a virtual birka
republic. Since Obama got in MILLIONS
upon MILLIONS of muslims have been
settled across our own midwest. The little
Calvinist churches have been shut down,
msques are going up all over the place."
----------------HUAC/ Nuremberg 2012---------------
Bob From District 9| 4.20.12 @ 8:50PM
How sad that Ross Kaminsky rants so yet makes so little sense. When he tries to bring in JFK he doesn't bother to mention just how high the taxes were that JFK cut. 90% taxes may be too high, 25% are too low.
His claim that higher taxes reduce revenue are absurd. If that were true, abolish all taxes and the government will have all the revenue it needs, magically. Even Arthur Laffer doesn't agree with him. Have you ever seen the Laffer Curve? You can find a video of him drawing it on Youtube. He puts the peak revenue point at aprox 50%. A figure that other economists agree is the right range, and a figure far higher than the tax rate for millionaires.
Bringing in Reagan was a nice touch. We do need to discuss the most prolifigate debt exploder of our time. He actually beat GW Bush in increasing the debt, more than doubling it. GW Bush just doubled it.
The increase in Capital Gains taxes didn't prevent that debt mulitplication, simply because they reflected a shift from other income to capital gains as the main source of income, because of the lower taxes. So higher capital gains revenue did not balance out lower revenue from other taxes. End result, a debt on it's way to swallowing up the country. Don't worry, you'll manage it yet.
And Reagan was the first president since WWII to increase the debt as a percent of GDP. Followed by BushI and BushII, the only other presidents to do so.
Which would lead you to believe, tax cuts do decrease revenue.
Bob From District 9| 4.20.12 @ 8:50PM
How sad that Ross Kaminsky rants so yet makes so little sense. When he tries to bring in JFK he doesn't bother to mention just how high the taxes were that JFK cut. 90% taxes may be too high, 25% are too low.
His claim that higher taxes reduce revenue are absurd. If that were true, abolish all taxes and the government will have all the revenue it needs, magically. Even Arthur Laffer doesn't agree with him. Have you ever seen the Laffer Curve? You can find a video of him drawing it on Youtube. He puts the peak revenue point at aprox 50%. A figure that other economists agree is the right range, and a figure far higher than the tax rate for millionaires.
Bringing in Reagan was a nice touch. We do need to discuss the most prolifigate debt exploder of our time. He actually beat GW Bush in increasing the debt, more than doubling it. GW Bush just doubled it.
The increase in Capital Gains taxes didn't prevent that debt mulitplication, simply because they reflected a shift from other income to capital gains as the main source of income, because of the lower taxes. So higher capital gains revenue did not balance out lower revenue from other taxes. End result, a debt on it's way to swallowing up the country. Don't worry, you'll manage it yet.
And Reagan was the first president since WWII to increase the debt as a percent of GDP. Followed by BushI and BushII, the only other presidents to do so.
Which would lead you to believe, tax cuts do decrease revenue.