In a mostly informative “news analysis” (“Ohio’s Anti-Union Law Is Tougher Than Wisconsin’s,” New York Times, 4/1/11) comparing new anti-union laws that restrict collective bargaining rights in Ohio and Wisconsin, New York Times labor and workplace correspondent Steven Greenhouse seems at one point to adopt the framing and language of anti-labor politicians and pundits:
Moreover, at a time of huge budget deficits and of Republican dominance in many states, including states like Ohio and Wisconsin where unions once had swaggering power, the pendulum has swung toward the taxpayer instead of the government workers paid by the taxpayer.
Pitting “swaggering” unionized public workers against “taxpayers”–who are, in fact, mostly other workers–may be a tried-and-true strategy of anti-labor forces, but it doesn’t accurately reflect the way the public see the issues. As the Times‘ own polling expert points out, Americans seem to be siding with public workers on the the issue of collective bargaining rights.
Considering the fact that this isn’t the only time the paper has pushed a false divide between government workers and nearly everybody else, perhaps Greenhouse would have more accurately portrayed the divisions had he written, “The pendulum has swung toward anti-labor activists and journalists, and away from public workers and the majority of the public who support them.”
Two wrongs don’t make a “right” (but maybe a politician).
The Republican corporate shills are using the devastation
caused by their failed economic policies to prey on the
fears (heard that one before?) of the public to eviscerate
what’s “left” of organized labor, true. It is also true that unions
have long ago sold their souls to the devil and now the pact
comes due. They traded votes for taxpayer funded pensions
and benefits that simply deferred financial disaster onto
their children and grandchildren. You reap what you sow.
The tax payers get screwed BOTH ways. Let the unions learn
this hard lesson now, and then use their renewed integrity to
recall every single politicain who voted in favor of corporate welfare
and tax cuts for the wealthy. Get out of that comfortable communal
bed before someone calls both sides “Socialists”.
Richard is not, I’m pretty sure, a public worker. He seems to see us (I’m a retired public school teacher) as having deferred financial disaster onto our children and grandchildren. I’ll remind Richard that teachers and other public workers are taxpayers, too. And most of us are parents and/or grandparents, even great grandparents. We have a huge stake in the future as such. Our negotiations with our employers were always settled with both sides agreeing to the contract. We did, at times, accept benefits and pension agreements in lieu of salary increases, when it was less difficult for our employers to compensate us in that way. Now those benefits and pension agreements appear to be better than many other workers receive. Teachers, and other union members, have agreed to zero salary increases and give-backs on insurance and pension benefits in my state, in order to keep the funding cuts to education imposed by the state legislature from undermining public education further. Instead of name calling and ad hominem arguments I would like the public to look at what is really happening with the unions and public employees. And compare that with the large amounts in tax breaks for the wealthy and the highest earning corporations, where they pay little or no taxes–money that could have solved the problems with the public schools and public workers’ unions.
Great diversion from what we should be doing which is hunting down big tax cheats, foreign bank accounts, corporations who don’t pay a dime but get subsidies, administration cronies who took care of their buddies at Goldman Sachs and other “investment banks”, etc.
Tired of folks letting Obama off the hook for this too: enough compromises and one can tell where he and the democrats truly stand and it isn’t with folks like Bernie Sanders (I would vote for him for President in a heartbeat).
Steven Greenhouse just doesn’t have a feel for the public or
his audience. He thinks his language reflects general pubic
feeling regarding government workers, the government, unions–
public or private. His reporting tells more of a story about him-
self than it does about what is going on in Ohio and Wisconsin.
I live in Ohio, and I can tell you that union busting efforts aren’t
going well at all. Recent polls now have Governor Kasich’s ap-
proval rating at 30%
I am a government worker in a flunkey job in New Jersey, and even the rednecks and bigots that I’ve been suffering for the past quarter century are talking about the time when we shall have no other choice but to trek down to Trenton to protest The Fat Man’s anti-labor policies. Perhaps the tide is turning when democratic socialists such as yours truly and NRA kooks and vicious racists can make common cause for our own survival. It calls to mind the Chinese civil war of the late thirties when Fascists and Communists stopped their mutual slaughter because the Japanese were perceived by both as the greater threat to them both.
The New York Slimes be damned!
Well, Richard-NYC, there was a time when simply calling someone a “Socialist” was enough to get some greenhorn hack reporter all a-quiverin’, but that time is past. Andrew Scala is on to something, and though ultimately I don’t think Democratic Socialists and Tea-baggers can work together for very long, in many respects we are in the same swamped boat. We don’t need to reach out to the Baggers–we’re right, they’re naive and wrong, and we far out-number them. When they come out of their comas, get of their knees from in front of the Koch boys, we’ll welcome them home. Oh, and by the way: The first of many state congressmen and women has just been recalled in Wisconsin. I can’t wait for Fox and the Kochs to bus in some more Bagger “supporters” of Governor Walker. There’s millions of ’em, dontcha know.
I guess my experiment with italics isn’t goin’ so good–for now.
putting the symbol at both ends should work ….
let’s see
nope, didn’t work….”let’s see” shouldn’t have been in italics
Tim right back at ya.It is you libs who are naive and wrong.And as we(conservatives) will soon be taking over lock stock and barrel- we are going to prove it to you.By making this country work again.By putting it back to work.By instilling confidence, and responsibility, and positivity again.By renewing the individualistic dynamic spirit of this land.By sweeping away the rotten worm- syndrome of class warfare.By repledging ourselves to our constitution.Is there a place for you in this?A welcoming home?Well i hope we don’t waste a minute blaming Obama,or Bush,or Clinton,or Reagan for the mess….Or you,and your kind!I hope we explode forward. When enough success and yes wealth has been recreated we will have more to give to your socialist experiments.At least let us say we will fully fund our safety nets. Beside that unless you change your theory’s of massive government confiscation, and redistribution of wealth, and handing out the dwindling crumbs that remain, Im afraid you will be left worrying about italics. Simply transcended.Really I think Gov Christy is articulating this attitude.He wants to roll up his sleeves,look the problems in the face and afford what we can in the move forward.Beggaring ourselves to keep our standard must end.It is simply kicking the can down the road.
The author of this piece seems to have forgotten the trouncing that the Democrats and their public service unions took in the November 2010 elections.
I would hasten to add that that disenchantment with the public sector employee and his “I’ve got mine, you pay” swagger is much broader and much deeper then these apologists could imagine.
Wrong, Curmudgeon. You know what? John Nichols reported a couple weeks ago that a teacher’s union steward in Wisconsin told him that people were calling or telling her in person every day that they voted for Walker (and not to mention a whole slew of other reactionary, lying bastards) and boy, were they sorry. That’s what happens when people are gulled by liars and mountebanks–they vote against their own interests. I think tens of thoudsands of working folk are learning a hard lesson.
Say, Helen, I think one needs to put the “end script” (or whatever it’s called) mark after the little arrow–it’s left arrow, small i and then right arrow at the beginning of the italicized word or phrase, and then left arrow, forward slash, small i. I’ll try it, now, in a P.S.:
P.S. You know what, Helen? I’m waiting for the Right and their leader Boehner to announce the big, new ,jobs package, aren’t you? Maybe in the spring, right after they criminalize abortion and destroy the lives of countless people who actually were going to take advantage of the already meager Big Bad government programs that are killing us, like school lunches and Planned Parenthood. The way those assholes were screeching about how important jobs were, I’d a thunk that that was,well, Job Number One, no? So far, nuthin’. Liars. Losers.
It worked! Jobs is italicised! What fun! I’m gonna try it again, just to check: Chris Christie’s a lying, depraved fat sack of shit.
Yup, it’s official. About Christie, that is.
The whole point of the Astroturf driven Teabaggers is class warfare.
I’ve decided to respond to michael e’s statement that goes “massive government confiscation, and redistribution of wealth” by asking him (and anyne else) a couple of questions. These questions are really neutral and for my information. If I’m reading him correctly (my apologies if I’m wrong), he is one of many who believe Obama is a socialist because Obama wants to use the tax system to “redistribute” wealth. That is, if I got this right, Obama and other liberals in the government want to take the hard-earned dollars of we tax payers and redistribute them. My question is, redistribute them to whom? I need clarification on that. Given the anger–perhaps the better word is frustration–I sense that Michael and others think this redistribution is unfair. I may agree with them, but I’m a simpleton and need it spelled out to me who are the recipients of these redistributed dollars. Now the other question I have flips the coin over. Michael is focussed on redistribution. But that only means that there is some primary distribution that gets redistributed. What is that primary distribution of wealth, how is it decided, and is it fair? Well, those are my questions. Love to hear what anyone has to say, particularly the one on primary distribution vs redistribution of wealth. All I hear is that Obama is a socialist because he wants a redistribution of wealth. I’d like to hear something more on the primary distribution of wealth. Why do we have some who make millions of dollars every year and others fall below the poverty line. Are the poor poor because they choose to be. Reagan felt that way. I have a good friend who thinks that way too.
That puts a lot on one’s plate, John, but believe you me, you’ve come to the wrong place for that kind of information. By that I mean FAIR is a media watchdog endeavor (the best there is, actually). I’ll give you a short excursis: Simply, all taxation redistributes weath, and for the last thirty years it has been massively moving from your pockets (I’m assuming your not a hedge fund manager or a mafia don or one of the Koch boys) to the pockets of the aforementioned Koch boys and other quasi-criminal types. This has not been an acccident, or the whims and vagaries of the marketplace, but rather a well-thought out coup. Go to http://www.tax.com for more information. One thing you will not get from the Troll-poster you mention above is anything even remotely resembling the truth on these matters.
P.S.: And your friend who thinks Reagan was right in his thinking that ” . . . the poor (are) poor because they choose to be?” He either doesn’t get out much, has never been poor (or jobless, or broke), utterly lacks imagination, or is an asshole. I’m guessing a combination, like the afore-mentioned Troll above.
P.P.S.: Now John, are you maybe some kind of Troll yourself? You’re obviously not a “simpleton,” so maybe your what’s known as a “trolling Troll,” a person who, for whatever reason, feels the need to egg on the well-meaning in places like this.
Well, the MTML got me again.
Jesus! That’s HTML
To TimN: No, I’m not a trolling troll. Never heard that expression before, but an interesting one. As for my good friend who believes the poor ar poor becasue they choose to be, well, on this point she is conservative in her thinking. I disagree with her on this. If agreement on everything were a prerequisite for having friends, then I would have no friends at all.
You are right about my comments on the FAIR site. My questions, which I believe to be good ones, are probably not best posted on the FAIR site, which as you point out is a media watchdog site. However, I posted them because as I read through the other comments, my questions seem to go to the heart of the matter. Everyone seems to dispute everyone else’s statistics. You’re response, for example, is based on some statistical analysis that demonstrates a redistribution of wealth from the middle and poor classes into the hands of a few. If I’ve read enough of michael e’s comments, I suspect he would dispute your statistics. I believe he thinks the direction is the other way around.
So I decided to push statistics aside. If Obama and liberal democrats are using the tax system to redistribute wealth to underserving folks–and I don’t think the wealthy are meant–please tell me who those underserving folks are and how much of our taxes they are receiving. Seems to me a simple question. Give me an answer and we can then examine it and then decide whether this is fair or not or whether we should be outraged. For example, all the outrage over federal employees and fat pensions seems to me to be displaced. Salaries paid to federal employees only amount to about 5% of the federal budget (a very simple statistic). And pensions are deferred compensation. And contrary to what you may have heard, the federal workforce has in general been in decline over the past several administrations (except for 2010, a census year). So, then, for example, looking at the size of the federal work force in 2010 and using that as an example of overbloated big government seems to me to be a mistake. But its been done. So, to michael e–and anyone else for that matter–give me an example of undeserving folk benefitting unfairly from a redistribution of wealth through the tax system.
But as you say, this is not really the place for this. But it does seem to go to the heart of the matter.
You’re making a common mistake about “statistics,” John B. Ask yourself: Is there truth to what someone says about, say, how taxes are collected and distributed? Yes, there most definitely is. Did you check out the site I put up? Of course everyone disputes everyone else’s statistics–this is a political argument about taxes and how they are (or should be) paid. Statistics, numbers, and easily quantifiable things are not opinions. If I say that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west in Chicago, and someone comes along and says “No, Tim, I think it doesn’t, and I read on the internet that scientists working for James Dobson say . . . .” Do all “opinions,” no matter how ill-informed or fact-free, deserve the same consideration? There’s a concerted effort to try to confuse people about what’s true and what is not about everything from taxation to Social Security. You yourself acknowledge my above point when you write this: “For example, all the outrage over federal employees and fat pensions seems to me to be displaced. Salaries paid to federal employees only amount to about 5% of the federal budget (a very simple statistic).” Now, if some troll comes along and says your a liar because you’re a “lib” or a “commie” or a “socialist,” is his or her opinion as worthy as yours? Does this other person get to call your cold hard facts “just your opinion,” and then proceed to trash you and what you’ve written?
Think about your friend and her opinion. Does it really have any merit at all? Does she really, really think that people are poor because they like it, or want to be that way? Has she really never considered the possibility that the circumstances of one’s birth might have something to do with their continued station in life? Is not your opinion (and mine, expressed above) more likely (very much more likely) to be the truth, and hers to be worthless? She’s not “conservative” in her thinking. She’s simply wrong, and ill-informed, or naive
At any rate, all taxation is redistributing wealth. I directed you to David Cay Johnston’s website for a reason. Johnston is the foremost expert on the real story (as opposed to the fairy tales–my opinion, but one well-informed) about taxes. Get his book, Perfectly Legal, and be prepared to be shocked by what this wise man has to say about our tax system. Take careful note of the fact that Johnston himself notes that no one disputes his findings, in debate after debate he’s had with Right wingers, conservatives,libertarians, and other doubters.
Finally, if you have the time (and the stomach) for it, check the archives here, and read the ravings of the troll you cite above. Make an assessment. You will wait a long time (forever) for a response to your challenge above.
John B. about redistribution……All taxation is redistribution. Tim is right.He is wrong in saying “back into your pockets”It is not into anyones pockets but the government.The government.A proven track record as thee most inefficient corporation/firm ever devised. But Tim is a socialist.As such ,he believes the government is the best steward of the blood and sweat of the people in this country.I wholeheartedly, respectfully disagree.I believe the constitution lays out pretty clearly limits on government power to tax. Originally the founding fathers felt (and their intent was) that “MAN SHALL NOT BE TAXED ON HIS WAGE”. Taxation would be on goods and services.In effect a flat tax.They well understood that the method we now use would lead to perversions of government overreach.And the political imposition of a class warfare.A flat tax is very efficient.Removes all tax shelters.Also removes government control.(And it spreads the pain.)Not good for gov power grabs or PR.And in the end it isnt it all about power?Not efficiency.
Today the top 1% of earners pay 38% of all Federal taxes.That is one third.The bottom 40% next to nothing.The top 10% pay almost all.This is plain and simlply non sustainable and corrosive to everything we as a free market capitalist system under our current constitution believe in.
As far as Reagan.Remember these canards and arguments(“Poor are poor because they want to be”Remember Reagan grew up poor) and misrepresentations of the man by todays libs were all tried at the time of his elections and soundly defeated by those voting.He in effect blew them and their perversions of the truth about himand his views out of the water.To cherry pick sound bites decades later is disingenuous.Ignore it or study those times.But in these times whenever even Obama sites Reagan, it does set some haters to teeth gnashing.
Tim calls people who are constitutionalists trolls.Troll=tea party.I suppose we should call socialists like Tim(by his own admission)MOLES.People who talk as if they want to tweak the system toward fairness -but in effect want to remake it.Obama says he loves this country(Ok i have never heard him say that but Im sure he has)and wants to remake it.Im sure he loves his wife……..and wants to remake her?Lets come out of the closet all you moles.To remake means to first tear down.Well we Trolls mean to halt that tear down.
As far as FAIR. Fair is a group that started in 1986 and PROFESSES to be some sort of watchdog of media bias. But as anyone and everyone knows it is a watchdog that only faces one direction. Toward the right.It is completely biased ,and must never be allowed to stand unopposed as to what it professes to
be.That would allow it to become a propaganda arm of the left.So I say yes check those sights Tim sends you.Or fair sights.But remember they are not looking to show you anything near a well balanced argument.Do your homework and look as well at the other side.Read all about the tea party as sighted by those above.Form that picture in your mind of jack booted evil blue meanies out to dominate the poor of the world.Then go to a rally.When you see the good people afraid of this governments over reach, and ever growing power to effect their lives, you may see the truth Tim sees “so clearly and articulates in such hateful way ,is not any truth at all.So if I see you at a rally and you are painted a troll remember where the moles are hard at work digging away.Under your feet to undermine where you and this country stand.
I’d like to thank both michael e and TimN for your responses. I do understand the significance of the truth content of statistics. Both of you have probably heard the old expression about statistics and liars. In the physical sciences, if one does a statistical analysis of one’s data and publishes the results, generally uncertainties are given and the audience pretty much knows what was done. It often leads to intense scrutiny of data and assumptions. And for the most part, scientists don’t politicize or falsify their results. (It occasionally happens often with dire results if found out. Think of the Korean scientist a few years ago who made false claims with regards to his stem cell research. Or the Berkeley scientist who claimed to have discovered the the next highest Z isotope.) For the most part politicization of science is done by others who have something to gain or lose. In the social sciences, statistical analyses are done left and right, usually with no uncertainties, to support or debunk a claim. And the problem is people sometimes deliberately hide their assumptions, for example what’s included or excluded in the analysis. Where does that leave us? Well, for most of us poor slobs, we either don’t have the skills or the time to validate the results of a statistical inquiry, to understand what it really means. So our predilections come out: we prefer these results over those others. (My use of statistics was a really simple one: what is the total federal budget and what fraction is paid out in federal wages.) So that’s why I wanted to push statistics aside. And that’s why I hoped michael e (or anyone else) would give me just one concrete example of how the tax system was being used to redistribute wealth to undeserving people. I was hoping he might respond by saying that 5% of the federal budget (I’m making this up)–what ever dollar amount that is–was going to some useless federal program that helped some group of people that didn’t deserve it. No statistics wanted. TimN, you are clear; you claim that the tax system enriches the top few percent of our society, that it only makes them wealthier. If they are getting richer from my labor, this I would consider very unfair. Michael e, if I understand your response, you feel that any graduated income tax is inherently unfair. If the top 1% pays 38% of taxes, that still leaves them with enormous wealth. I sense you would say that is not the issue. Which brings me full circle back to the second of my original questions. When you refer to the top 1% you are back in the realm of the primary distribution of wealth, not its redistribution. We have people who make hundreds of millions of dollars ever year, and others who struggle by on a few thousand. How is that distribution determined and is that fair? When I listen to Tea Partiers (I’m not saying you’re one), they claim Obama to be a socialist. They always focus on the redistribution of wealth, not the primary distribution. I would like them to look at that and comment. If Obama were really a socialist he would be attacking the primary distribution of wealth by abolishing the accumulation of wealth through private property. That he is most certainly not doing. Whether he should or shouldn’t, well, being a simpleton, I have no opionion. THIS IS MY LAST COMMENT. I AGREE WITH TIMN THAT THIS IS REALLY NOT THE PLACE FOR THIS. THANKS FOR YOUR INTERESTING RESPONSES.
“Today the top 1% of earners pay 38% of all Federal taxes.”
Sorry, that’s false.
According to the Conservative Tax Foundation “In 2008, the top 1 percent of tax returns paid 38.0 percent of all federal individual income taxes.”
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html
Research from the Liberal Group Citizens for Tax Justice using 2008 data for all federal, state and local taxes combined found that the average effective tax rate of the top 1% of earners was 30.9%.
Taxes include all federal, state and local taxes (personal and corporate income, payroll, property, sales, excise, estate, etc.). Incomes include cash income, employer-paid FICA taxes and corporate profits net of taxable dividends.
Interestingly enough, those in the top 2% to 20% range actually paid a slightly higher effective tax rate: approx 31.67%
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/just-how-progressive-is-the-tax-system/
If you look at total taxes paid vs total income earned for the well off the numbers are quite similar.
For example, in 2008, the top 1% of earners made 22% of all income and paid 23% of all taxes.
Those in the 95 to 99% range of all earners made 14% of all income and paid 16% of all taxes.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/04/do_the_poor_really_pay_no_taxe.html
http://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343%2811%2900003-9/fulltext
(Relationship between primary wealth distribution and public health.)
John B .
I would say that it is not the governments job to redistribute OR distribute the wealth in any way shape or form.They have the power to levy taxes in a fair manner upon ALL Americans to do the few enumerated things allowed under our constitution.Past that we are on shaky ground.Of course as they massively grow in size scope and power those “few”things grow exponentially.The governments job is limited.That is the key word here.You seem to feel that due to the great inequities in a free market system that it is the governments job to find ways to even the playing field.As if the great divergence in ultimate failure ,and ultimate success must be the “fault” of those who succeed.This is the heart of class warfare.A Political pawn to allow unlimited taxation upon a set group of people.So we penalize success and subsidize failure through taxation. Unworkable in the long run.Non sustainable.
You want me to show instances of government redistribution to undeserving people?May i say everyone is deserving of Bill Gates wealth.Everyone.Just as deserving as he is himself is….in a perfect world.I would wish it for everyone.Poor ,middle class,and most of all ME. But it is not the governments job to decide who is more deserving of HIS wealth .
So the question is what is fair.I favor a flat tax.Beyond that I can live in a graduated system.But the system sucksI have asked Tim and Helen how high they would push the top bracket(.Wish they would say.) Lets say new York is their dream town.New york is a great example of attack on the rich through taxation.So how did that turn out? Predictable i would say.They simply move out.Problem solved.Tax base shredded.We also cant survive with near 50% having no skin in the game.In the end it is all a government shell game.We do not have a fiduciary problem. Plenty of money coming in.We have a spending problem!
What did I tell you, John?
“We also can’t survive with near 50% having no skin in the game.”
Again, this is false. Only a tiny percentage of adult Americans pay no taxes, let alone pay no Federal taxes.
“We do not have a fiduciary problem. Plenty of money coming in.We have a spending problem!”
Nonsense, we could literally zero out all discretionary spending [including the Pentagon] from this year’s budget and still be running a deficit because taxes rates are too low.
Under our current tax system, a person earning $374,000 a year pays the same top tax rate as someone earning $10 million a year. In other words, for example, taxable income between $400k and $500K is taxed at the same rate as income between $4 million and $5 million.
Helen the question is taxation for what?Taxation to do the few things the government is endowed to do?Taxation for continued massive Dem spending?Taxation to balance the budget?Taxation to fund Obama care?Taxation for every Liberal boondoggle imaginable?Taxation to pay the interest on the dept that is rising into the many Trillions due to overspending and government inefficiency?You love stats.Here is one.Forget taxation.Confiscate everything in this country.Land ,wealth and everything in between.Times that by 5.You are not going to pay the interest on the dept.The real dept.What we need is a simplified tax code.You know it is too complicated when half of Obamas cabinet are tax cheats ,who use as their excuse that they didn’t understand it.
Your statement that you only pay a set amount of taxes stopping at 374 00 a year is gonna be great news for Bill Gates and George Soros.To think they are only being taxed on 374K!I know you know thats not true but it sure sounded like you were saying that.
Im interested what percentage you personally feel is the correct amount of people who in effect do not pay Fed income taxes.And also what you believe should be the top tier percentage that should be paid.
I personally alway loved Regans simplified tax solution.15%-25%-35%.Everyone pays except for the truly poor.Always remember an old saying that applies to government.Give a pig a finger and he will take a knuckle!If you say the rich should pay 2% more and that would fix all….fine.But that is not how it works.And we must be philosophical about this.At what rate does taking a mans hard earned wealth hurt his productivity.And is government a better steward of money than those who dreamed the dreamed and earned what the government never did?
OK, I’m going to contradict myself and make another post. I’m also going to preserve my precious neutrality. TimN, I would agree with you that it is wrong if the tax system is being used to make the rich only richer. That is, if that’s the case. Michael e, I never disagreed with you. If the primary distribution of wealth is fair and equitable, then, yes, any redistribution such as through a graduated income tax would be inherently unfair. It follows that if it’s not fair and equitable, then a redistribution of wealth may make an unfair situation fair or more at least more fair. (I hate using the word fair; it’s so subjective.) I’ll assume it doesn’t make it less fair.
You infer that I have a problem with the current distribution of wealth. Maybe yes, maybe no. Perhaps you think that I believe that the wealthy are morally obligated to share their wealth and hence a graduated income tax is a necessity. Not necessarily so, not if that wealth is fairly obtained. When I asked, How is the primary distribution of wealth determined and is it fair? I wasn’t stating any opinion. I wasn’t implying that it was unfair. I’m not an economist. Maybe this is a question for the economist. I’ll restate my question: What determines the distribution of wealth in our society or any society for that matter? This is a different question from how governments use the tax system to redistribute wealth.
Michael, you’ve given me a little more meat to chew on than TimN, so I’ll work with that. You state that in a free market economy it’s not the government’s business to question or meddle with the primary distribution of wealth. But you also go on to say how that distribution is decided. It’s based on the natural differences between people: some are smarter, some work harder, and some are just luckier than others (I’d love to make a killing in the market). A free market economy (catchwords for capitalism) rewards those people. To take that away from them is inherently unfair and punishes talent and ability.
Have you ever taken a look at the Texas Declaration of Secession from 1861? Here is a societyâ┚¬”Âthe pre-Civil War Southâ┚¬”Âin which we had a fabulously wealthy planter class. In this document the planter class justifies its wealth based on the natural inferiority of black Africans, that slavery is mutually beneficial to both slave and master, and furthermore that is ordained by God. I don’t think you would argue that the distribution of wealth in antebellum South was fair.
But could it be, when you argue in favor of a free market economy, that the primary distribution of wealth is based on the natural differences between men that you are making the same argument that the planter class made 150 years ago but only stripped of race? Agree with me for the moment that over the past 100 years or so that power and wealth have become concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. (If you disagree with that, that’s fine. A discussion for another day, and I’d like to hear what you have to say. I don’t know if it’s true or not.). And furthermore, agree with me that this trend is likely to continue. That being the case, does the distribution in wealth as it now stands in the U.S. , does it fairly reflect the natural differences among people? That the top few percent of our society deserve and overwhelming share of wealth and power and that this is in accordance with nature? (By the way, my friend that I’ve alluded to would argue that’s the case.) If not, you may have a problem with your assumptions. And I don’t think you can blame the government because we are discussing the primary distribution of wealth, not its redistribution.
The wealthy and the corporations have immense control over citizens, much more than government has. If I want to buy something, my choices depend on the companies who sell the stuff and they set the price. Is government controlling anything here? Except maybe making sure that what is being sold is safe and not likely to kill you, but that is in your favor, not an oppression by government as the teabaggers seem to think.
If I want to buy a house or a car I get the money from those who have it, the wealthy, and so they have leverage over me in the use of their investments that provide the money for me.
7 of the top millionaires in Congress are Democrats. Now I do not know if that would effect change in the tax codes or not.
Contrary to the well known FAIR troll there is not a spending problem, but one of fair taxation and shared sacrifice.
People think the country was built on a kind of idealism that did not have anything to do with the haves and the have nots. There was some thought and fear of “the democracy” which were those who were not land owners or who did not have a lot of control over the metals used for the payment system of the day. There were “debtors and creditors.” The ones who had the vote when the country was began were landowners. It was not until 1867 that the working people could vote. Read more here:
http://www.newdeal20.org/2011/02/28/foreclosing-the-foreclosers-early-american-style-37166/
From the website http://www.newdeal20.org/2011/02/28/foreclosing-the-foreclosers-early-american-style-37166/
“It can be hard to envision an early America seething with conflict between ordinary, hardworking Americans, stifled in their efforts to get ahead, and the rich, predatory Americans who stifled them. Prevailing historical fantasies of pre-Revolutionary America conjure a modestly thriving yeomanry, along with craftsmen, small businesspeople, and merchants participating together in a representative civics. In this fantasy, income and wealth disparities look minor and manageable; slavery and women’s subjugation are terrible deviations from an ethos of liberty shared more or less democratically by free Americans of all types. The main problem for everyone is the restrictive influence of the British elements in government. The rosy narrative has it that a revolution dedicated to freedom of trade and thought and the proposition that all men are created equal will launch this society on a grand progress, embattled but irresistible, toward a democracy that includes everybody.”
and
“The possibly startling fact is that the major social battle raging before, during, and after the American Revolution was over the proper uses of money and credit in American life. For ordinary people of the period, these were hardly abstractions. The only real money in 18th-century America was metal â┚¬” silver and gold coin from England, Spain, and Mexico â┚¬” and for long, terrible periods, money was rarely seen by ordinary people. Small farmers and artisans, wanting to survive and improve their lot, had to borrow. Merchants, gaining access to metal through imperial trading networks, used their money to make money, becoming lenders. Well before the Revolution, Americans defined themselves in practical terms either as â┚¬Ã…“debtorsâ┚¬Ã‚ Ãƒ¢Ã¢”š¬” poor and working people in small-scale enterprise â┚¬” or â┚¬Ã…“creditorsâ┚¬Ã‚ Ãƒ¢Ã¢”š¬” well-heeled merchants growing their money by lending it.”
Kinda shows a less than rosy picture of freedom for all, not just the rich and powerful. Seems analogous to some of what is happening right now. There are those with most of the money, a rare few, and then there are those who have very little a ubiquitous many.
“Im interested what percentage you personally feel is the correct amount of people who in effect do not pay Fed income taxes.”
I don’t have an answer because I don’t think this is a serious question..The only folks who freak out over people not paying Federal Income taxes are the wingnuts who flutter about like they’re living in a nation of scofflaws without ever asking, “Who are these people and what part does tax policy play in the outcome?”
For example, a head of household with a wife, a mortgage and two kids making less than approx $48k has an federal income tax liability of zero. Is that a bad thing? Do that person really not have any “skin in the game?”
Of course not, he or she is simply living in a system that gives breaks and deductions to encourage people to buy an house and raise kids.
Is $48K too high? Too low? Should our government be pushing for these outcomes? Would it make a difference if the percentage of non-payers was lower? higher?
Those strike me as the questions worth asking.
ps
Lots of seniors with modest investment income over and about their SS payments have no Federal income tax bill…. is granny ripping the rest of us off?
Whoops! this sentence in the PS should read “Lots of seniors with modest investment income over and above their SS payments…”
One of the problems with discussing top marginal rates is that the people at the very top of the range of all income earners, those making between $20 million and $1 billion a year only generate somewhere between 1/3 and 1/4 of their income via wages….the rest is from dividends and capitol gains, which are taxed at much lower rates.
Which leads to Warren Buffet’s remark that he’s taxed at lower rates than his secretary.
Better questions would be:
“Why are dividends and capitol gains subject to a flat tax?”
“Why does someone realizing an $80k cap gain paying the same rate as someone who realized an $8 million gain?”
“Why is someone with a huge gain paying 15% while a single guy is paying 25% on the part of his taxable income in the $34 to $82K range?”
“Why do our current marginal rates jump from10% to 15% to 25% with the rest of the jumps only being 28%, 33%, 35%?”
————
Now I realize that correlation isn’t causation, but it’s true that the U.S. economy did much better when top rates were in the 50-90% range than when, after Reagan, they came down….first to the mid 30’s than to [briefly] 28%.
The economy also did better after they went back up to 39.6 and worse after the second set of Bu$hco cuts. One of the results of those cuts: the rich simply put more of their money into savings.
Not only was there not any unusual increase in investment or job creation after the cuts, but during the five so-called growth years, the number of Americans living in poverty went up. That was the first time that had ever happened.
PS:
If you’re really worried about market efficiencies, at some point [like now] too much wealth concentration at the top actually stunts economic growth.
The Reagan Miracle as explained by Anne Laurie and Tom Levenson
The enormous increase in debt under Reagan, marks the point when we first were confronted with the great tax cut lieâ┚¬”Âwhat I think of as that huge steaming pile of that which emerges from the south end of a north facing horse captured beneath the Laffer Curve.
Reagan inherited a debt level of 32.5% of GDP from President Carter. His tax cuts and profligate spending left us owing 53.1% of GDP at the end of his second term, and the Bush extension pushed that total to 66.1%.
Bill Clinton’s combination of tax increases and constraint on the rate of government growth (and, for the most part, a policy of minimal military recklessness) enabled him to leave office having pushed the debt back down to 56.4%â┚¬”Âwhich model of prudent, small â┚¬Ã…“câ┚¬Ã‚ fiscal conservatism was so wholly abandoned by Bush the Minimal that he left office having blown the debt up to unprecedented heights: 83.4%.
http://www.balloon-juice.com/2011/04/09/children-with-matches-playing-in-the-powder-magazine/#more-65788
————–
In the interest of equal time, i will point out that a big chunk of the increase in the debt that belongs to President Obama was caused by extending the Bu$hco tax cuts on the top earners.
“As far as FAIR. Fair is a group that started in 1986 and PROFESSES to be some sort of watchdog of media bias. But as anyone and everyone knows it is a watchdog that only faces one direction. Toward the right.”
That’s a strange thing to say considering that FAIR’s #1 target of criticism, by a large margin, is the NY Times.