Unfortunately, being such a capitalistic institution, the WSJ doesn’t allow most of the opportunity to see the wonderful reasoning behind their claims without paying dearly for the priviledge. However, if you want a careful analysis of the distributional effects of the Bush tax cut proposal, you can go (for free!!) to http://www.ctj.org
There are lots of different ways you can look at the data (and Bush has taken much advantage of this fact!), but CTJ (Citizens for Tax Justice) notes that probably the fairest is to ask, “Of each dollar that is ‘returned to the taxpayers’, how much goes to people in each income group?” I will summarize a few of the important findings here:
Over 42% of the money goes to those in the top 1% (with incomes of $319,000 per year or more).
Nearly 60% of the money goes to those in the top 10%.
Less than 13% of the money goes to those in the bottom 60%.
This analysis does not include the proposed change to Social Security, but others have already explained why it is not really realistic to call that a tax cut. (BTW, I believe there are also some good references on the Social Security issue that explain why it is so naive to believe that privitizing it will give people much better returns on their investments than they are getting now, but I would have to search for them.)
Now, you can argue that those with the high incomes should be the ones getting the most back since they are the ones who certainly pay the most in income taxes (although the differences become less pronounced once other taxes such as sales taxes and payroll taxes are included). But, I’d rather see George and his defenders make that argument to the American people than to try to tell me that he would be giving most of the tax cut to the poor and middle class…Because that ain’t where most of the money is going!
Phil replied to me: *I said: “Unfortunately, it’s simply inconceivable in modern America that any of those things could be provided to you by any entity other than the Federal [and state and local] Government.” *
Oh okay, so it’s not the government providing services that’s sad, it’s the “inconceivability” of their being provided by other entities. But that’s hardly inconceivable: libertarians, for example, are conceiving of it all the time, and even non-libertarians have plenty of privatization schemes for various services (look at the way UPS and FedEx, for example, privatized part of the postal market). There’s a difference between people’s not wanting to have other entities take over many governmental functions, and people’s simply being deplorably incapable of conceiving of it.
*See, there’s nothing wrong with it if that’s what everybody wants. As it happens, not everybody does want that. Of course, we all know that the opinions of those people are irrelevant, simply because they are unpopular. *
Man, and I used to think that liberals tended to be rather a whiny bunch, but that was before I came across the libertarians! “Oh, my opinion’s in the minority so everybody thinks I’m irrelevant, oh, how sad that is, oh, it’s not fair, my intrinsic rights to do everything the way I want as long as I’m peaceful and honest are being trampled upon.” Oy!
Fortunately, liberals are thoroughly used to being an unpopular minority so we’ve developed somewhat thicker hides. And one of the advantages in the liberal approach to government is that we consider government to be (ideally, and insofar as we can live up to it) an essentially cooperative rather than omnificent enterprise: i.e., it’s the government’s job to do the things we as a people want it to do, not to ensure that everybody can always do every (peaceful and honest) thing they want to do just the way they want to. And of course, since all of “we as a people” want different things, we recognize that cooperation will involve compromise, so (if we’re smart, responsible, and lucky) we end up with a government that does most of what most of us pretty much want it to do.
There are many individual rights, of course, that are damn well not subject to these principles of cooperation and compromise, which is why liberals yip so loudly about school-sponsored prayers at football games even if the whole audience is in favor of them. But we think that rights such as freedom of speech or religion are qualitatively different from “rights” such as the freedom to have many individual choices as to which organization inspects the hamburger you buy or puts out the fire in your house. Plenty of governmental functions are legitimately cooperative efforts at public service, in the liberal view, and so will necessarily involve compromise and be less satisfying to minority opinions. This is sure not a perfect system, but liberals consider it far preferable to the inefficiency, waste, failure, and exploitation that we believe would certainly result from abandoning government’s cooperative efforts at public service in favor of a laissez-faire “handle all your problems however you want as peaceful honest private citizens” approach.
This is why liberals, ordinarily so sympathetic and supportive of overlooked minorities, tend to lapse into somewhat coarse eyerolling and jeering when libertarians complain about the horrible injustice of their not being allowed to choose their own individual fire protection services. Yes, I guess it wouldn’t hurt us to be a little kinder about it, and I’m sorry if I was offensive. But you see, liberals consider that government has two kinds of responsibilities: (1) the fanatical protection of individual rights, and (2) the cooperative efforts at public service. We wouldn’t support giving up the first in favor of the second, as many collectivist “the-individual-is-nothing-the-state-is-everything” societies have tried to do (and as many libertarians wrongly accuse us of wanting to do). But neither do we support giving up the second in favor of the first, because we believe that “promoting the general welfare,” with its inevitable compromises and quarrels, is part of what the government is there for, and that the government shouldn’t just abandon that part of its job to random groups of variously assorted private citizens who might or might not undertake it.
I did not say that the rich didn’t pay taxes. What I said was that most of them usually find a way to pay less than they should because of creative accounting…or something to that effect.
Yeah, I’m sure Bill Gates pays everything he owes…come on!
I don’t get you, Phil.* You admitted in the General Election thread that “modern America” becoming a libertarian society is wholly impractical given the nation-state paradigm extant worldwide, yet you’re still making fun of people for being unable to transcend that paradigm. That seems a little rude, don’t you think? Look, if you want to discuss how certain services can be effectively removed from the province of the federal (and state and local, as you belatedly added) governments, that’s fine. We’d be happy to do that. But please, please stop condescending every time someone doesn’t agree with you about the relative capabilities of public and private institutions. If someone views the existence of government as axiomatic, don’t just assume it’s because they lack the vision to feel otherwise. That kind of attitude doesn’t lend itself to considered debate.
*ObMST3K: Nobody gets me. I’m the wind, baby.
Nevertheless, he and everyone else in his tax bracket still contribute the overwhelming bulk of U.S. tax revenue; I’m sure he probably pays more as an individual than most of the posters on this board combined. And he gives a lot more to charity, too. (Yes, I know it’s deductible.) Gadarene:
This may seem hard to believe, but I’m not making fun. I genuinely do find it sad that we’ve been raised, for the last two generations, to find the government at all levels to be our first recourse rather than our last for seeking effective solutions to problems. Could we turn overnight into a system in which people did not automatically rely on the government to be the provider of all services? No way. People would be lost. Could we move, slowly, to a more libertarian system in which people, as free beings, were free to make choices between competing entities for services? I hope so.
Look at all the ongoing, neverending controversy over the public schools. The controversy and the problems are inherent in the fact that they are public schools, and as such, every member of the public (including those without children) feels they should be allowed to make decisions with regard to how they are run and what is taught. Should there be prayer or moments of silence? If so, when, and what kind of prayer? Who leads it? What should be taught in history, and what should be left out? What should be taught in science, and what should be left out? Phonics or whole language? Old math or new math? Bilingual or English-immersion? The answers to all of those questions changes depending on who wields political power and clout, rather than on what actually educates children best. This is an inevitable result when people with differing opinions and competing interests are all trying to wield their right to make decisions over so-called “public property” and are limited to one and only one choice.
Kimstu is fond of quoting the preamble to the Constitution as validation of liberal government. Which is fine–I believe in the Constitution as well. I only wish we followed it.
In order to form a more perfect union? Great. Let’s do it. Anything that causes peace rather than strife.
Establish justice, insure domestic tranquility? Sounds to me like courts and police, something nearly all libertarians agree are legitimate functions of government. To what degree our courts and police are just is another matter entirely.
Provide for the common defense? I think most libertarians agree, again, that this is the legitimate work of government–to defend its citizens’ rights and property.
Promote the general welfare? Ah–this is where it gets spotty, isn’t it? What does “promote” mean? Does it mean “provide for, take care of”? I think it does not. Many of you might think it does. Secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. I would argue that a government which relies primarily on coercion and threat of imprisonment to assure one’s compliance with an expressed or implied social contract is doing it’s least to secure liberty.
Of course, another phrase from another famous document in American history, which Lib is fond of quoting, is that from the Declaration of Independence, in which Jefferson rights that governments should derive their powers from the just consent of the governed. Again, many of you have argues that implied or coerced consent are just consent. I disagree.
Every time we have done so we’ve been told how evil it is to even suggest for a moment that education, fire protection, roadways and other such “basic services” might better be handled by competing entities in a free market. At least that’s my perception. Think about this–if government is so much better at providing these things, why doesn’t it manufacture its own military equipment instead of hiring corporations to do so?
I would honestly suggest that you are at least as guilty of this attitude as anyone else is, but I’m willing to change as much as anybody else is. Please, however, do not mistake my honest feelings for condescension or mockery.
I guees it depends on where you are coming from, but my impression was that others were being condescending to pldennison not the other way around.
I do not see why it is blasphenous to argue that free market sources would perform certain services better.
My wife just went from a state job to private industry. I have been hearing her reklate, with awe, how great the new employer runs its business. And she put it well, “in the state, they were spending other people’s money and no one had any accountability for how it was spent. Here, they are spending their own money and everybody is accountable”
When considering making a donation to a charity, my wife and I have been surprised at times to find how little actually makes it through the various administrative charges to the intended recipient. Noting Mr Zambezi’s remark:
And in noting the recent revelations coming out of the GAO that millions of taxpayer dollars are “missing”, I find it hard to understand why privatization of a large number of government “services” aren’t openned to a “free market”. My personnal belief is that the layers of bueracracy tend to “eat up” a very sizable percentage. I also would be very interested to know if in fact there were reports available to measure that percentage of dollars spent to what it was effectively spent on. Any help here?
The bottom line is that it doesn’t matter how many dollars are thrown at various problems/programs if the administration of those programs is inefficient. Perhaps the cutting of the pursestrings might force some accountability.
Only if you change the way government resources are allocated. The sad fact of the matter is that government agencies are heavily encouraged by the system to spend every penny, rather than save it. If I head up a department and spearhead a cost savings initiative that saves 20% of my allocated budget, guess what happens to next year’s budget? It’s 20% smaller. Now, you may think “That’s the way it’s supposed to be! If you don’t need the money to do your job, then you shouldn’t get it.” Sure, in an ideal world, it would be that way. But in reality, nobody wants a budget that exactly meets their demands. They want a cushion, a little room for the “What ifs.” Next year will undoubtedly be a little different than this year, and money will need to be spent on unforeseen things. Nobody wants to be caught short. What ends up happening (and the feeding frenzy is in full swing right now) is that as October 1st approaches, all the departments tally up whatever may be left in their coffers and spends like mad. Sometimes this entails buying things that are needed but have been put off, but often it’s just a shopping spree to make sure our accounts are emptied. It’s referred to as the “end of year fallout,” and people plan on how to spend it just like most folks do with their income tax return.
FTR, my government experience is all within the military, so there may be agencies that do not operate this way.
> I thought of people who lived down in SW VA, where I lived for several years. I asked Bush’s tax calculator how much tax savings the following family would realize: a family of four, making $22,000 a year, with the wife making 25% of the income.
Answer: Not a penny.
You’re really being disingenuous, because the family you describe does not pay federal income taxes under the current system, so how could their taxes be cut when they aren’t paying any?
Try putting in numbers for people who actually pay tax. Geez.
Ptahlis
I agree with your post entirely! I have worked in industry rather than the government for the past twenty years. This scenerio of spending the budget before fiscal year end has happened several times, but every few years the beancounters force a headcount cut or have told us where to stick the budget remainder. I don’t see the government having this kind of accountability any time soon since the agencies appear to me to constantly expand with no checks and balances in place.
The question still remains how to determine the efficiency of an agency so that some kind of an oversight control CAN be established.
TampaFlyer replied to RTFirefly: *“I asked Bush’s tax calculator how much tax savings the following family would realize: a family of four, making $22,000 a year, with the wife making 25% of the income. Answer: Not a penny.”
You’re really being disingenuous, because the family you describe does not pay federal income taxes under the current system, so how could their taxes be cut when they aren’t paying any?
Try putting in numbers for people who actually pay tax. Geez.*
What’s “disingenuous” about it, TF? The point RTF (hey, you guys related? ;)) was making was that this hypothetical family would be no better off with Dubya’s splendiferous new tax cuts. Since the Bushies are trying to sell us these tax cuts (and their candidate) by convincing us they’ll make a big difference to us financially, I think it’s quite valid to point out that for lots of people they won’t make any difference at all. I also note that none of this seems to take into account the Earned Income Tax Credit, and I’d like to know what changes would take place in that.
Going back to the OP AND my clarification, let me try it one more time.
According to the Wall Street Journal, IF you paid federal income tax last year, you would have paid LESS taxes if the Bush plan were in place.
It’s a simple, unambiguous statement.
Now as far as the earned income tax credit, this is simply welfare disguised as a cash giveaway. I’d like to see it abolished, but that’s fodder for another thread.
Yes, and I imagine that the working poor will very much enjoy their extra candy bar they get each day while the richest 1% will enjoy the new SUV they can buy each year. Look at the breakdown of who gets what…See my previous post or http://www.ctj.org
Geez! Why don’t you save some of that anger at the working poor for some of the corporate welfare or the people who are driving around in SUVs that are being subsidized in our current economy because of all the externalities associated with automobile use that are not being borne by the buyer or seller? Or do you find it more worthwhile to vent your anger at the most powerless in our society?
Yes, and if shit was gold, we’d all be rich. Those tax cuts are a complete fantasy, and were never intended to even be passed out of Congrees. Note that some smart-ass demo moved to have a version of the Bush cuts put on the floor to be voted on, and the GOP killed it faster than you can say “false promises”.
The Gore stuff is a little better, as we could actually afford to have those cuts, once a large portion of the debt was paid off. However, again, his cuts are more stupid social engineering cuts, instead of a simple “everyone gets a 10% cut”. I do not like his cuts any better, but I do like the idea of paying down the debt.
Jshore how about defining WHY they are powerless? The continuing bent of liberals like Gore to expand the role of the federal government to that of the “do all, provide all” for the section of society that these very actions tend to “keep DEPENDANT” is disturbing to me. There are many examples of people who have risen out of the depths of poverty or very humble beginnings (maybe I should point out that I belonged to this group)to become sucessful leaders in business, academia, and government. If some have made it, why haven’t others? Perhaps they made bad personal decisions or run into “bad luck”. Perhaps they had no ambition to do better. Perhaps they had no one motivating them to do anything except stick out their hand. Perhaps some are just damn lazy. I am not in favor of income tax credits either because it is pure socialism!
My thoughts (maybe a slight hijack, LOL):
I believe every action that generates income should be taxed. Even the high school kid serving fries at McDonlds.
Every earning American needs to be given the opportunity to understand that they are part of supporting the government and its some of their money providing for the public good. I believe (hope) that this understanding would give rise to an awareness that our leaders, agencies, and programs need to be held to a high degree of accountability for insuring that the tax dollars sent to Washington are not wasted and are utilized efficiently. In one step further, I also believe this tax should only occur ONCE! Hence no death tax or tax on interest earned in savings accounts.
Phil, I am afraid you have bought into one of the “Big Lies” of the GOP, ie that interest, or estate taxes, or dividends are unfair as they tax $$ that has already been taxed. So? Every is taxed over & over. Your company earns money- that is taxed, then they pay it to you-taxed- then you spend it (taxed), then they guy who get it is taxed, etc etc. Everytime is earned or transferred, it is taxed. There is no real difference between you earning interest (taxed) on money you put into an account, then you paying taxes on wages you earn. Estate taxes tax the TRANSFER of money to a new owner. No different than the taxing of a purchase. where you transfer your money to a new owner, also.
Now, this is my field (I no longer work directly in it, true, but I am still an Enrolled Agent, ie a certified tax expert), and I can tell you that the entire “double tax” thing is a scam. Now, there is something to be said about encouraging savings thru tax breaks, and I can get behind it, which is why I recommend IRA’s, etc very highly. We have argued the entire Estate tax thing before, but only those who refuse to do any estate planning, and the filthy rich pay any Estate taxes. No “Small Businesses” or “Famaily Farms” are sold off to pay the tax, either.
