Saturday, September 24, 2011
Not a Lot of Progress
So, what is it exactly that makes a "Progressive" progressive? Is it simply the action of lobbying for a chubbier/far more active Federal government? OR....is there a little more to it than that? I mean, just look at me, for instance. a) I've spent the entirety of my adult life working with vulnerable populations (the handicapped, the disadvantaged, the elderly) - in human services, special education, etc.. b) I've been a strict vegetarian for nearly 20 years (they say that the best way to reduce your "carbon footprint" is to eat less factory meat) - partly out of health reasons but also out of a love for animals and respect for the environment (have you ever gotten a load of that pig stench in North Carolina?). c) I've driven nothing but (high mileage) economy cars for my frigging entire life. d) I recycle EVERYTHING. Hell, folks, I even take stuff from my job and recycle it. e) I've consistently made donations to the local food bank. And even on the God damned frigging issues, for Christ!; I'm pro-choice, pro gay-rights, pro immigration reform, pro progressive taxation, anti-war..........................................................................................................I guess what I'm trying to ask here, folks, is, why in the hell can't I be considered a progressive?...I mean, seriously, does it ALWAYS have to be some lunatic on cable, some angry miscreant sitting behind a computer bitching and carping, etc.? That's sure as hell what it seems to be lately - you say that you oppose a 77.65% top tax rate and they want you out of the country.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
41 comments:
Maybe Will because you don't play the victim or race card at every opportunity.
Perhaps it is because you believe in America and the value of LIBERTY, PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, and LIBERTY.
Now I'm going to be a shameless self promoter (but it's your fault cause you gave me the opportunity by posting this ;) and suggest a visit to my site.
raet post by the way!
Will,
Rational’s explanation was anything but rational.
You are on the left side. Fiscally, you are centrist. I call myself a progressive, though, a far left one, and most progressives think my fiscal policy is conservative (It is isn't. It is very progressive).
Right now the trend on both the left and the right is to say and believe that if you are not an extremist, you are not one of them.
The more the right becomes extreme, the more extreme the left becomes to combat it, which makes the right still more extreme, which makes the left still more extreme.
It is the current trend, and probably nothing more than that. At some point, people will get disgusted because the left will be so far left and the right will be so far right, that the trend will be to be centrist and everyone will lose their principles.
Then, people will long for the good ole days when people had principles, and the process will begin anew.
OR ... the nation will implode under its own insanity.
Not sure which one will actually happen.
I know one thing. I have been a vegetarian for close over 25 years. You are now the second blogger I have met who is a vegetarian. I thought none were out there.
My Brother!
I did not say I wanted you to leave the country due to your not wanting you pay a higher tax rate if you were wealthy... YOU said you would leave.
And, NOBODY has ever suggested a 77.65% tax rate!!! That's a completely fabricated number. I know you got it by adding up various other taxes... but those other taxes only apply to a FRACTION of a high income person's earnings. NOBODY would EVER be taxed at 77.65% on their ENTIRE income!!!
The 77.65% tax rate you keep referring to is a LIE. Let me repeat that... The 77.65% tax rate you keep referring to is a LIE. Let me repeat that... The 77.65% tax rate you keep referring to is a LIE. Let me repeat that... The 77.65% tax rate you keep referring to is a LIE. (Yet, I imagine will continue to use that number).
Also, there are numerous things an individual can do to lower their taxable earnings. Charging a high rate isn't so much about actually collecting that amount, it's more about influencing people's behavior.
A person in that category might, for instance, decide to reinvest some earnings back into their company (and therefore reduce their taxable income). They may decide to pay their employees more (because employees who feel appreciated will work harder and such a move would be good for the company)... etc.
Progressives realize that if you invest money (that is, collect taxes and spend them) everyone benefits. You don't realize this. You think that if we do what the Republicans advocate... which is to let the "job creators" keep more of "their" money, they will create jobs (even though taxes are at an all time low and that CLEARLY isn't happening).
This is why you are not a progressive.
What I want to know is why you do not believe YOU are an "angry miscreant" when you sit behind your computer bitching and carping about the US not lowering it's corporate tax rate to zero? I know, I know... it's because you're right and everyone else (especially progressives) are wrong.
have you ever gotten a load of that pig stench in North Carolina?
Careful, that stench could be the ignorance of the population and corrupt and stupid politicians from South Carolina drifting northward.
Will, I'm real fuzzy on definitions but you sound an awful lot like a progressive to me.
Les, there's an awful lot of common ground out there if people are just willing to look for it. For instance, a lot of the stuff that Ron Paul and Gary Johnson have been saying are things that principled liberals should embrace. And those 2 solid Democratic senators from Virginia have put forth an energy proposal that a lot of principled conservatives should embrace. Unfortunately here, the tea partiers and the hard-core progressives only want purity and the beat goes on.......John, I had a feeling that we had something in common. So, are you a total vegan or do you do some dairy, too. Me, a little low-fat cheese and 1/2 and 1/2 in my tea and coffee (I drink soy milk but like the moo moo in my caffeine bev.).
Double b, and North Carolina supposedly considered the enlightened south. What a frigging joke that is, huh (their recent attempts at draconian abortion restrictions, for example).
wd, you are wrong on so many levels that my head is spinning. First of all , I KNOW that the 77.65% rate (70% plus a removal of the SS cap) wouldn't apply to all a person's earnings (DUH!). I still reject it. I reject it on moral grounds, that the government should NEVER confiscate that much of a person's private property and on policy grounds; a top rate that oppressive would destroy incentive and more than likely eventuate in the government getting LESS revenue (and I also reject the simplified notion that government spending always helps people - Carnegie and Annenberg did more to build this country than FDR and all of that make-work bullshit)). And I am FOR a progressive taxation system; raising the top rates back to 40%, eliminating the special consideration for cap gains, and lowering the cap on mortgage interest deductions - 3 proposals which will cause the wealthy to pay much MORE than they currently are. I guess what I'm trying to say is that you're full of shit, as usual.
This is another reason why Will can NOT be a progressive... He wants to hand off as much power as possible to the wealthy and corporations...
by allowing the upperclass to accumulate as much wealth as possible... and maybe they will be generous and do good things with (a portion of) that money for society. Progressives say WE THE PEOPLE should make the decisions regarding where money should be spent so as to benefit society.
Will SAYS he knows that 77.65% wouldn't apply to all a person's earnings... yet he keeps ADDING ALL THE RATES UP (when NONE of the various rates apply to an entire person's earning, and most apply to only a small fraction of it).
You're being extremely deceptive in framing your argument. Conclusion: Will is wrong on so many levels and full of shit as usual.
Will,
So, are you a total vegan or do you do some dairy
Are you kidding?! I do have some principles. Dairy is delicious. F*** them cows and their right to milk ownership and their rights to not suffer that I may drink. I am a progressive. We redistribute that stuff, but keep the cow alive.
But Dervish, I am also a far left progressive and yet I am not a fiscal nut either.
In ALL cases, I want what's best for lower income people, and I actually don't give a damn about being "unfair" to the rich. I only care about taking so much that they will no longer participate. The rich would not actually pay three fourths taxes on any portion of their income.
Any proposal that suggests they should is flawed.
Also, if we actually collected all the taxes at each bracket that are our official on paper rate, there would be no reason to invent such a Robin Hood tax.
When you behave like a fanatic and define that behavior as progressivism you just make a big target out of the left. You are not helping your cause one bit.
The only people you will convince are those that are already convinced. You are such a good debater in so many ways. You know lots of data and can retrieve what you don’t know quickly. You argue with enough confidence to be persuasive. Yet, you continually aggressively attack anyone who shows a hint of sanity or moderate thought. What a waste. A potentially good debater with a great deal of knowledge, packaged in a jackass. (I mean that as respectfully as possible, of course).
John Myste [1]: You argue with enough confidence to be persuasive. Yet, [you're] a jackass. (I mean that as respectfully as possible, of course).
John Myste [2]: When you behave like a fanatic and define that behavior as progressivism...
[1] Because you added the part about meaning the "jackass" respectfully, I'll say thank you very much.
[2] You're a progressive and I'm a fanatic? I rescind my thank you and substitute in a "*expletive* you". You know what expletive I mean... but I mean it respectfully, so there is no need to be offended.
Dervish,
No offense taken and I thank you for your continuing support and respect.
Dervish,
Being fair to the rich is not a concern. We are nowhere close to being unfair to them.
However, when their top marginal income was taxed at 90%, if there had been nothing to offset the tyranny, I am sure you agree that this would have been not only unfair, but foolish. It means we basically have an income cap and the American Dream is a limited benefit of our form of capitalism.
It makes the false assumption that if I am rich, you must be poor, and so we have to handle that.
We have to have a measure of fairness, or everyone will feel oppressed. Having people make lots of money in America does not have to equate to Carnegie vs. Factory worker tyranny. Our two people can co-exist, my friend, and everyone will be happier when they do.
Moderation: It is more fair, more right, more effective. And yet, neither side wants it.
Sincerely,
Your Friendly Neighborhood Liberal
Dervish and everyone else,
DON'T disagree with anything I have said. I just realized I have something that is going to take several hours due for work tomorrow.
If anyone disagrees with any point I have made, I concede defeat. You are right and I am wrong. Good game.
On the subject of vegetarianism, I just received this email from conservative author James Delingpole via Human Events...
"If God really cares about cruelty to animals, how come he made foie gras taste so delicious?"
Foie Gras, in case you don't know, is a fatty duck or goose liver created by force feeding corn to the animal.
In other words James Delingpole supports animal cruelty (and believes all good conservatives should)... and I imagine his support of animal cruelty extends beyond just the creation of Foie Gras.
I disagree with John Myste regarding a couple of points he made in one of his previous posts... seeing as he specifically said he would conceed defeat if I did so... I claim victory. I'm right and he is wrong. I thank him for his honesty in admitting this fact.
I hear you.
If I were asked in a survey question, I would have to say that Will is NOT an angry miscreant, but Dervish definitely is. It's all about style and substance.
If you're one of the angry miscreants, you can't see it in yourself and you see it in others where it doesn't exist.
Heathen Republican: If you're one of the angry miscreants, you can't see it in yourself and you see it in others where it doesn't exist.
Will is the one who brought it up. btw, "angry" is definitely not a word people would use to describe me. I'm a glass half empty kind of guy, so I'm infinitely more likely to get depressed rather than angry.
Nice try to turn this around and make it an attack on me, Heathen, but you're totally off base.
After a certain amount (10 million?), wd wants to tax individuals at 77.65% (and that doesn't even include state income tax, which in NY would be 10% for the highest earners). He's absolutely entitled to that opinion. But I'm also entitled to say that a rate that high would be a) punitive and b) highly destructive of incentive. The way that I see it, it's a balancing act and, just like with smut/pornography, I know imbalance when I see it.
HR, thanks for a) the support and b) not calling me a socialist for wanting to raise the top rates back to 40%. wd could definitely learn a thing or two from you.
Will,
I am trying to work and was not going to respond to anything, but I am not going to sit idly by and let you denigrate smut and pornography.
innocent bystanders should not be targeted in this discussion.
Will, would you simply raise the top rate to 39.6% or would you do what Obama wants: raise the rate of individuals making more than $200k and couples more than $250k?
Either way, I won't call you a socialist, but I'm curious where you stand. I assume you saw my chart depicting Obama's choice.
Here's my proposal, HR. Three rates; 10% for the first $30,000, 25% for $30,000 to $400,000, and 40% for all income over $400,000. I would also eliminate the special consideration for capital gains and have it taxed as regular income (I would, however, be willing to index it for inflation). But before you reject me totally here, I would also totally eliminate the corporate income tax (this, to a) help promote stock equity and b) help make American businesses more competitive worldwide).
Oh, one more thing, I would also eliminate ALL sales taxes on ALL pornographic material.
Will, I am not in this conversation. I am still at work.
However, you still have not solved the problem of tax sheltering once the corporate income tax is eliminated. Are you saying you would simply ignore that problem and eliminate it anyway?
If this is the case, I cannot endorse your plan.
Also, you must make sure the tax rates for each bracket are actually collected. If you do these things, then I endorse your plan happily.
We're pretty close. I think 40% is too high because I think it's immoral to take more than 1/3 of anyone's income. Perhaps 40% capped at 33% total income tax.
I concur with John that this assumes the taxes are actually collected. So no tax deductions, no tax credits, and everyone in the lowest tax bracket actually pay income tax.
I am also coming around to treating capital gains like other income, but since someone is risking wealth to earn those capital gains, we have to allow capital losses to be deducted from total income.
Will: After a certain amount (10 million?), wd wants to tax individuals at 77.65%.
It was 15 million, and it was Robert Reich's suggestion. I've always admired him, and thought that he was much smarter than I... so I should support his idea... but he is also (apparently) in favor of Will's corporatist plan to do away with the corporate income tax, which I most definitely oppose, so maybe Robert Reich isn't that smart after all... I'd be happy with the upper tax rate proposed in the Progressive caucus' "People's Budget".
So long as the rate is high. Someone making 15 million dollars (or more) is, IMO obscene. It shouldn't be possible because nothing anyone can do is worth that much money.
Also, you saying that businesses located in America aren't competitive because of a high tax rate is total nonsense.
"The United States actually has the lowest corporate tax burden of any of the member nations of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development".
This is from an article by Bruce Bartlett, a Republican who served as domestic policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan and as a Treasury official under President George H.W. Bush.
Heathen Republican: I think 40% is too high because I think it's immoral to take more than 1/3 of anyone's income.
I think it is immoral that some make obscene amounts of money while others live in poverty and die because of it.
@Heathen,
I am not in this conversation, but if I were, I would say that I completely disagree with this: and everyone in the lowest tax bracket actually pay income tax, a policy that borders on tyranny in my opinion. You don’t take sandwiches out of the mouths of hungry children and impoverished elderly. The desire to do so seems sick to me. Everyone needs some “skin in the game,” but only the poor pay in actual skin.
I am also coming around to treating capital gains like other income, but since someone is risking wealth to earn those capital gains, we have to allow capital losses to be deducted from total income.
I agree completely. I think the annual loss deduction is at some ridiculously low amount like 3k per year. It is absurd. I do agree, however, that we cannot allow the loss deduction rules to unchecked. While it would be the fair thing to do, it is not practical. It could lead to a depression if the stock market plunged. For utilitarian purposes we cannot do it.
I think it is immoral that some make obscene amounts of money while others live in poverty and die because of it. There is no getting around it. This is an accurate statement.
As for the one third, that is arbitrary. You are coming around, though. I am proud of you. You will be a liberal any day now.
John, when I said even the lowest tax bracket pays taxes, I was simply agreeing with you and Will, so I don't understand why you're now disagreeing. Will set the level at 10% for the first $30k. You added, "Also, you must make sure the tax rates for each bracket are actually collected." I agree with your statement and simply highlighted the lower bracket because (I believe) that's where most tax credits occur that lead to zero income tax liability.
"I think it is immoral that some make obscene amounts of money while others live in poverty and die because of it."
Even though Dervish made this point, I also agree with it. Whoever said we can't limit taxes to 33% and protect the poor? It's a false choice to say that we can't do both, and that's what I support.
"As for the one third, that is arbitrary."
Agreed, and since it's entirely arbitrary, I've changed my mind. Now collecting more than 25% of anyone's income is immoral.
Like all of morality, it comes down to a gut feeling and cultural consensus. It simply seems wrong that a person who works hard and earns a dollar is then forced to give more than 1/4 (or 1/3) of it to government.
I'm sure everyone here could agree that an immoral rate of taxation exists, we just might disagree on the rate. Is 90% too much, or 75%, or 50%? I suspect a large poll of Americans would settle in the 25-33% range.
But hey, at least mine is an arbitrary percentage. It will apply long into the future regardless of inflation. Dervish wants a cap on income at $15 million, which will be a middle class income in 10 years given Obama inflation and quantitative easing.
@Heathen,
John, when I said even the lowest tax bracket pays taxes, I was simply agreeing with you and Will, so I don't understand why you're now disagreeing.
Because I am at work and I read it too quickly. I don’t agree with your opinion about this, Will’s opinion about this, or my opinion about this, it would seem. Oops. I could get behind the rest the rest of the Will plan, however.
.Like all of morality, it comes down to a gut feeling and cultural consensus. I think you are forgetting about God.
I'm sure everyone here could agree that an immoral rate of taxation exists, we just might disagree on the rate. Is 90% too much, or 75%, or 50%? I suspect a large poll of Americans would settle in the 25-33% range. 90% of Americans don’t understand taxes. There is no telling what their opinions would be if they did.
Dervish wants a cap on income at $15 million, which will be a middle class income in 10 years given Obama inflation and quantitative easing. It is a minority of people in this country talking about income caps.
I am at work. I don’t have time for this. To the degree that we disagree, I concede!
I even concede to the sick "everyone put skin in the game" requirement, which no moral society I can imagine would have. It is just the greediest most demented concept of right I can imagine, but still, I concede, so don't debate me.
I would also pass a Constitutional Amendment/Commandment - thou shalt not eff with the tax code. I would only allow for deductions what's presently on the Schedule B; med expenses over 7% of your income, charitable contributions, state and local taxes, and mortgage interest (which I would cap at $500,000 a year). Yes, the rates can go up and down but nothing could be added to muck things up (electric cars - all that that really did was give a bunch of rich people free golf carts, for example).
wd, we've already had this discussion. No, not all corporations pay that 35%. But some do, and even the ones that don't still have to spend valuable resources, time, and money in an effort to reduce their burden (what, you think that those tax attorneys and accountants work for free?). Wouldn't that time and money be better spent actually running the business itself? And if we're raising the tax rates on wealthy individuals AND eliminating the special consideration for cap gains, aren't we solving the problem of making the rich pay more anyway? On a related subject, I saw this businessman on CNBC and he said that he actually pays more for compliance (dealing with the regulatory maze, etc) than he does for rent. Something is definitely wrong with that.
Let's see, under my plan a guy making 20 million a year would have to pay nearly 8 million in taxes (the first $400,000 would obviously be at the lower rate). After deductions, it would probably be 6.5 - 7 million. Add to that close to 2 million more in state taxes, a humongous property tax bill and the various levels of government would be getting close to half of that 20 million. I see that as fair in that you'd be neither coddling the rich nor gouging them. That's where I stand.
John, I'm not going to get you in trouble, am I - posting at work?
Will,
John, I'm not going to get you in trouble, am I - posting at work?
Firstly, it is not technically a work day. It is for me, because there is lots of word to be done. This is handled by having milestones that much be completed no matter what. One of those milestones is Sunday night and I just completed it. Parkinson's Law: the amount of time allocated to a task will be used by the task.
I don't work 40 hours per week, but far more. I take occasional breaks during my 60-80 hour week or whatever it turns out to be.
Thirdly, I work from home. My house is my work and though I do watch myself pretty closely, I am very tolerant.
I have to meet deadlines. So long as I do that "the man" is happy. If I don't do that, I will be fired I suspect. Needless to say, I don't miss deadlines.
Wow, Will, you are almost a socialist!
Dammit everyone! Can't we just all get drunk and get along?!
I think that we all should just pick a percent and divide it by whatever. It may not exactly be scientific but it's better than what they're doing in Washington.
Post a Comment