You know, the more I think of it, the less I can comprehend Vox or Jerz's point of view.

Ultimately, as citizens of the United States of America, you have been given a rare chance to assess a lot of raw information which goes into the making of public policy on national and international issues. Ultimately, you're better for it because you're put in a better position to assess any policy moves made by your government on your behalf,or policy proposals put forward by the party in opposition. Usually, you wait decades to get this kind of a snapshot. You're not going to get the opportunity to see this much contemporary raw information too often.

dajafi wrote:we seem to have a totally co-opted corporate media which somehow has come to view its role not as informing the public about what its government is doing to support informed democratic decision-making, but rather to perpetuate its own access by serving as a buffer between power and voters. This is the real problem with the press

This is correct.

It has always been somewhat the case, but has gotten worse in recent years.

Remember, Woodward and Bernstein were not on the White House or political beats when they broke Watergate. They were junior reporters who didn't have much in the way of access to power brokers. Those who did wouldn't have sniffed the story for fear of jeopardizing that access.

Why do conservatives turn their noses up so dismissively when the the topic of re-distribution of wealth comes up? I mean it really seems like a sore point! Yet the wealth in this country has already been re-distributed.... upwards over the last 20 years, right? There is no problem there of course. Do all conservatives possess some sort of old European gene that wants to find its way back to Feudalism? Seriously, why is re-distribution of wealth to the middle and lower classes so bad? Excepting that its a liberal idea?

Warszawa wrote:Why do conservatives turn their noses up so dismissively when the the topic of re-distribution of wealth comes up? I mean it really seems like a sore point! Yet the wealth in this country has already been re-distributed.... upwards over the last 20 years, right? There is no problem there of course. Do all conservatives possess some sort of old European gene that wants to find its way back to Feudalism? Seriously, why is re-distribution of wealth to the middle and lower classes so bad? Excepting that its a liberal idea?

In medieval times, the poor were taxed, with the wealth moved from the poor to the rich landowners. Wealth has been redistributed upward in the last twenty years, through capitalism, not taxation. The suggested redistribution today is done via taxation of the wealthy, and it is the taxation that conservatives oppose. Conservatives feel that people should be rewarded for their work, keep the money they earn, and involving government in the redistribution not only redistributes the wealth, but destroys it some of it in the process. Paris Hilton, investment bankers, etc. could and should pay more taxes, but redistributing the wealth of someone that's busting their ass to earn $200-$300k a year and running a small business is a bit different.

cshort wrote:

Warszawa wrote:Why do conservatives turn their noses up so dismissively when the the topic of re-distribution of wealth comes up? I mean it really seems like a sore point! Yet the wealth in this country has already been re-distributed.... upwards over the last 20 years, right? There is no problem there of course. Do all conservatives possess some sort of old European gene that wants to find its way back to Feudalism? Seriously, why is re-distribution of wealth to the middle and lower classes so bad? Excepting that its a liberal idea?

In medieval times, the poor were taxed, with the wealth moved from the poor to the rich landowners. Wealth has been redistributed upward in the last twenty years, through capitalism, not taxation. The suggested redistribution today is done via taxation of the wealthy, and it is the taxation that conservatives oppose. Conservatives feel that people should be rewarded for their work, keep the money they earn, and involving government in the redistribution not only redistributes the wealth, but destroys it some of it in the process. Paris Hilton, investment bankers, etc. could and should pay more taxes, but redistributing the wealth of someone that's busting their ass to earn $200-$300k a year and running a small business is a bit different.

First off, the middle class is "busting their asses" more and more these days and getting nothing more for it. I go to work every day and see people who work their ass off who are depressed, crying, and numb to their current situation. Maybe the Republicans should change their thinking to: people should be rewarded for their work regardless of their tax bracket?

Secondly, following your argument that re-distribution of wealth upwards is OK as long as it is earned by the upper class of the nation (please, you probably shouldn't mention 'bankers') we are headed for Armageddon, and not in the holy sense. Based on he last 10 years I would suggest the rich folk have a long-term plan to keep the riff-raff away from their property, less damage may occur.

If nothing else, most of us probably can agree that Helen Thomas and Steve Carlton would have a lot to talk about

Wizlah wrote:You know, the more I think of it, the less I can comprehend Vox or Jerz's point of view.

Ultimately, as citizens of the United States of America, you have been given a rare chance to assess a lot of raw information which goes into the making of public policy on national and international issues. Ultimately, you're better for it because you're put in a better position to assess any policy moves made by your government on your behalf,or policy proposals put forward by the party in opposition. Usually, you wait decades to get this kind of a snapshot. You're not going to get the opportunity to see this much contemporary raw information too often.

Isn't that the point of getting it decades later though? It's not "sensitive" any longer, and the players have all retired. I'm not trying to make too much of the latest leaks because I stick by the whole "leaks for leaks sake" perspective on it - but I think I want diplomats and people in the State Department to have the ability to frankly discuss issues with one another, even if they verge on gossipy, without having to worry about how exactly they phrase their work or who at the the Guardian will be publishing it in a few months time. If so-and-so foreign leader has a drinking problem, that's worthy of noting internal to the State Department and there's no reason that suspicion shouldn't be kept secret - both for the freedom of being able to put trends together internally and to protect the dignity of so-and-so and his or her country. I know, I know - if so-and-so has a drinking problem his or her people have the right to know - but is that the US Government's duty? I don't think so. This is diplomacy, not journalism. I've never been on the side of things where I believe every action and activity of the government should be public in real-time and I do think there's a legitimate privacy and secrecy concern that can and should be respected (particularly in the case of troop movements in a war zone, for example). I just don't see any whistle-blowing going on here, and I can't find any righteousness or dignity in wikileaks. It's Entertainment Tonight on what can become a dangerous scale.

There's also the other side of this - the argument for transparency. These individuals in the US government will change their behavior as a result. Some may argue that in some cases this is for the better and good for them because they got spanked (and I might agree) - despite what I wrote earlier, I'd still expect things to be handled in a professional manner. But this isn't going to go the direction of greater transparency, it's going to drive government activities further toward the clandestine not the other way around. I guess if you don't have access to the information it doesn't matter one way or the other, so maybe that's an observation for observation's sake....

cshort wrote:
In medieval times, the poor were taxed, with the wealth moved from the poor to the rich landowners. Wealth has been redistributed upward in the last twenty years, through capitalism, not taxation.

I think models based on theories incorporating the concept of rent-seeking update the quaint image your assertion conjures of yeoman capitalists putting their shoulder to the economic wheel.

Conservatives feel that people should be rewarded for their work, keep the money they earn, and involving government in the redistribution not only redistributes the wealth, but destroys it some of it in the process. Paris Hilton, investment bankers, etc. could and should pay more taxes, but redistributing the wealth of someone that's busting their ass to earn $200-$300k a year and running a small business is a bit different.

so how DO you sift the value-infusing wheat from the rent-seeking chaff? If you feel it's by scrapping more gov't intervention, start by proposing first junking ALL business regulation & see how loud the screams are from orgs like the US Chamber of Commerce. However much Werthless and others might insist that markets regulate themselves just fine, eventually, there's little evidence of that in the real world.

drsmooth wrote:

cshort wrote:
In medieval times, the poor were taxed, with the wealth moved from the poor to the rich landowners. Wealth has been redistributed upward in the last twenty years, through capitalism, not taxation.

I think models based on theories incorporating the concept of rent-seeking update the quaint image your assertion conjures of yeoman capitalists putting their shoulder to the economic wheel.

Conservatives feel that people should be rewarded for their work, keep the money they earn, and involving government in the redistribution not only redistributes the wealth, but destroys it some of it in the process. Paris Hilton, investment bankers, etc. could and should pay more taxes, but redistributing the wealth of someone that's busting their ass to earn $200-$300k a year and running a small business is a bit different.

so how DO you sift the value-infusing wheat from the rent-seeking chaff? If you feel it's by scrapping more gov't intervention, start by proposing first junking ALL business regulation & see how loud the screams are from orgs like the US Chamber of Commerce. However much Werthless and others might insist that markets regulate themselves just fine, eventually, there's little evidence of that in the real world.

By and large, the government and the wealthy were synonymous in in the middle ages. Question - what is your definition of middle class? $50k? $100k, $200k? I know plenty of people in the $150k range that have lost their jobs, had the stress, anxiety and tears that go along with that, yet many would consider them wealthy in terms of this conversation.

I think Chuck Schumer's idea of $1M as a cut-off is a good start for your "wheat vs chaff" argument. $250k is much too low - there are many small business (plumbers, insurance brokers, etc.) at that level that employ 3-4 people, and adding a tax bite at that level is likely to impact one of those people, but then again since $200k is wealthy, we'll just have the government pay that person instead.

I never said that regulations should be removed, but there is inefficiency in government - much more than the private sector. The value destruction I'm speaking of has nothing to do with regulation, but rather the inherent waste government adds to the equation. Isn't it more efficient for the plumber to pay his employee directly, rather rather than lay the person off, pay additional taxes to the government, and have the government cut the (former) employee a check?

Don't get me wrong - I don't completely buy into the conservative argument. As mentioned before, the Schumer idea is a good starting place, but I do think that now is the wrong time to raise taxes back to 2000 levels for everyone. I also think that once the economy rebounds, taxes should be raised to the Clinton era levels, and if you listen to a number of conservatives (even Boehner), there is acknowledgement that we'll need to do that.

There's a theory, which I think I agree with but want to hear more, that we should have more tax brackets, not fewer. I certainly agree that $250k is far too low a cutoff for the "top" bracket, in a time when we've seen truly stunning concentration wealth among the top 0.1 percent or so of the distribution.

But then I'd also like to subject more than the first $106,800 of earnings to the FICA tax. The logic's the same in both cases: whatever your number is, it isn't worth nearly as much now in real terms as when it was set. In both cases, some mechanism to make the figure lag inflation, with provision to reset every ten years or so, might make sense.

If graduated tax brackets are for keeps, and they seem to be lets not kid ourselves, I'd be up for this. In my opinion, there's a pretty big gulf between being someone who owns a small franchise or a professional couple earning $250K and someone(s) who's hit the half million mark - and then again - to the individual who's in the seven figure range and above. Maybe the middle ground is to concentrate earning penalties less on those who earn a lot and more on those who earn a lot, lot.

cshort wrote:I never said that regulations should be removed, but there is inefficiency in government - much more than the private sector. The value destruction I'm speaking of has nothing to do with regulation, but rather the inherent waste government adds to the equation.

this "government is inherently less efficient" thing can be an appealing notion, but I've not seen incontrovertible evidence of its truth. Do you have good sources for the quantitative extent of this efficiency gap?

Isn't it more efficient for the plumber to pay his employee directly, rather rather than lay the person off, pay additional taxes to the government, and have the government cut the (former) employee a check?

I'm not sure I understand the equation you're positing there?

Don't get me wrong - I don't completely buy into the conservative argument. As mentioned before, the Schumer idea is a good starting place, but I do think that now is the wrong time to raise taxes back to 2000 levels for everyone.

you mean to let tax cuts expire for everyone? Yea, me too. So draw the expiration line at $1 mil rather than $250k and we can move on.

In Boehner World, now is never the right time to let tax cuts expire for his handlers. The future is the right time, which will never be now.

cshort wrote:I know plenty of people in the $150k range that have lost their jobs, had the stress, anxiety and tears that go along with that, yet many would consider them wealthy in terms of this conversation.

National median household income is $50k... highest by state is MD & NJ ($69k), PA is around $49k, Mississippi the lowest at $36k. $150k is a lot of money for the vast majority of people in the US. Not Thurston Howell "wealthy", but it's like 3-5x the income of most households.

cshort wrote:I think Chuck Schumer's idea of $1M as a cut-off is a good start for your "wheat vs chaff" argument. $250k is much too low - there are many small business (plumbers, insurance brokers, etc.) at that level that employ 3-4 people, and adding a tax bite at that level is likely to impact one of those people, but then again since $200k is wealthy, we'll just have the government pay that person instead.

Doesn't the $250k number everyone's bantering about refer to "personal income"? (I'm not sure, which is why I'm asking). I know there are seperate small-business provisions in the infamous tax cuts, and FWIU the dem proposals kept them. And FWIU there are provisions where a small biz can do revenue as personal income (but I think that only applies to the smallest of smalls, ie one man or hubby/wife family only businesses). So regarding plumbers, brokers, etc. with 3+ employees, are we talking $250k personal income (revenues minus expenses) or the business's revenue (gross)? If the former, they are making good coin. If the latter, then I'd suspect they aren't paying employee quarterlies, either the "employees" are paid under the table or are considered contract workers where they themselves are responsible for paying their own quarterly taxes... iow, the plumber/broker/etc small biz is likely doing it wrong.

Warszawa wrote:Why do conservatives turn their noses up so dismissively when the the topic of re-distribution of wealth comes up? I mean it really seems like a sore point! Yet the wealth in this country has already been re-distributed.... upwards over the last 20 years, right? There is no problem there of course. Do all conservatives possess some sort of old European gene that wants to find its way back to Feudalism? Seriously, why is re-distribution of wealth to the middle and lower classes so bad? Excepting that its a liberal idea?

Conservatives who are against re-distribution define redistribution as taking from one person against his/her will and giving it to another. This could be income, wealth, or future benefits. I don't understand your definition, that different final outcomes are, ipso facto, evidence of redistribution. That Bill Gates or X entrepreneur has been able to leverage higher productivity gains and "shrinking" global markets into huge incomes/wealth is not evidence that he was forcefully taking money from others in the middle/lower classes. With so many liberals making this tired argument, it's easy to see why conservatives will often lazily reject such thinking and turn their noses up at it.

The justification, summed up in one sentence, is that allowing people to keep their earned income is the most fair way, because on average, it provides the best incentives and outcomes; people own their own labor, and they own the fruits of their labor, and any deviation from this "principle" is less than optimal. Social Security, SSI, Medicaid, Food stamps, and other programs are designed to protect those people will low income. Most conservatives accept these types of programs as humane, necessary, and beneficial for society. Social safety nets promote general well-being, and in this rich country, guaranteeing a minimum standard of living is something that most people do not debate much anymore. But beyond these programs specifically designed to prevent poverty, conservatives tend to retreat to their opinion that what they earn is theirs. And paying a disproportionate share of "ordinary" spending breeds discontentment.

That's leaving aside that taxes in general are inefficiently spent, purposely used on questionable projects to buy votes, and tend to be difficult to rescind.

Conservatives care about growing the pie, and liberals care about how the pie is cut. Conservatives think that how one cuts the pie affects its size, while liberals either A) think that's a minor consideration, or B) argue that the pie will be poisoned if someone gets too small of a slice. Liberals care about short-term outcomes, while conservatives tend to think long-term.

So when conservatives say we want to reduce the corporate tax rate, liberals instantly think "we're giving more of this fixed pie to big-shot corporate execs," instead of considering that our high corporate tax rate (it is the second highest in the world) is hurting domestic job creation and repatriation of income.

Meh, I gotta get ready for my final.

Maybe I'm missing a subtle yet important distinction between "conservatives" and Republicans. But the main consequence and, it seems, intention of Republican policies has been to make the largest slice of the pie that much bigger even as the size of the pie itself holds steady or shrinks a bit. And the public means by which we generally find the pie grows--investment in R&D and various human capital systems--these days get much more support from Democrats than Republicans, who seem to view war as the only thing government can be trusted to do. Meanwhile, competing pies--China's, say, or India's--are growing, as they do make those investments.

I honestly don't think it's generally understood how the US became the most successful civilization in human history. Laissez-faire economics wasn't it, though it's surely contributing to the growing risk of decline.

Anybody who says the private sector is more efficient than government should spend time working in both. Just look at the appointments of a typical corporate office lobby and compare with a government building.

TenuredVulture wrote:Anybody who says the private sector is more efficient than government should spend time working in both. Just look at the appointments of a typical corporate office lobby and compare with a government building.

Many of those lobby's are a thing of the past. You'll see quite a few companies getting rid of the plush corner offices, installing cube farms, and shuttering buildings. And I do find the Capitol Rotunda quite impressive.

TenuredVulture wrote:Anybody who says the private sector is more efficient than government should spend time working in both. Just look at the appointments of a typical corporate office lobby and compare with a government building.

You can't mean "typical" without any additional qualifiers... "Typical Philadelphia", "Typical Manhattan"... "Typical" corporate office workers sit in cube farms in backwater commercial parks.

And I'm not arguing your point with this, I'm just saying I don't know anyone who would recognize working in the kind of place you describe.

This chart should be ingrained in the mind of anybody who cares about fiscal policy. The main things to note:

Federal taxes are the lowest in 60 years, which gives you a pretty good idea of why America’s long-term debt ratios are a big problem. If the taxes reverted to somewhere near their historical mean, the problem would be solved at a stroke.

Income taxes, in particular, both personal and corporate, are low and falling. That trend is not sustainable.

Employment taxes, by contrast—the regressive bit of the fiscal structure—are bearing a large and increasing share of the brunt. Any time that somebody starts complaining about how the poor don’t pay income tax, point them to this chart. Income taxes are just one part of the pie, and everybody with a job pays employment taxes.

There aren’t any wealth taxes, but the closest thing we’ve got—estate and gift taxes—have shrunk to zero, after contributing a non-negligible amount to the public fisc in earlier decades.

If you were structuring a tax code from scratch, it would look nothing like this. But the problem is that tax hikes seem to be politically impossible no matter which party is in power. And since any revamp of the tax code would involve tax hikes somewhere, I fear we’re fiscally doomed.

link

Wonder if the proposed .02 payroll tax cut hits both ends of FICA. Haven't really seen that discussed so probably not.