Yes, that is how taxation works. Its not a collection plate or a PBS fund drive. You pay what you owe voluntarily, or it is taken it from you. You can remove yourself from this burden by moving to Monaco (and a lot of European celebrities do just that).
That doesn’t change the point.
It’s not that the act of raising taxes once causes further increases. It’s that the premise for raising taxes this time would continue to apply - and could continue to be applied - equally well after this particular increase. So if you accepted this as a valid approach to considering this particular tax increase, there’s no limit.
There could be a lot of people who supported that particular tax increase but would be frightened of someone with the mindset displayed. Hence the rationale to highlight it.
Take this up with iiandyiiii.
Sure there is – the limit being what poses an undue burden, or what is confiscatory, or when the desired funding level is reached, etc. Just because that argument is (or might be) appropriate now doesn’t mean it will always be appropriate – that argument would fail to influence me if he was arguing to raise taxes from 70% to 80%.
That might seem to be the case now, but once a new level of taxes and spending become the new normal, then “a little bit more” starts looking a lot more reasonable.
If you agree that there’s a certain level of taxes that “you didn’t build the infrastructure” won’t get you, that would imply that it’s not an argument in favor of higher taxes unless you can establish that we’re not at that point already. Tossing out “you didn’t build that” with no other context suggests that it’s an open ended obligator.
Right. And I think Obama’s campaign, at the time, was successful (for me, at least) in establishing that we were not at the point already.
Not to me. If you believe this, then you would seem to be suggesting that when a politician says “we should increase the size of the military” that is an “open ended obligator”. No, it’s advocacy of a policy in a certain time and place, and it may or may not apply to other times and other places.
And this, I think, is where we have a fundamental disconnect. I think you want to establish a general principle by which we act. It is essentially the same thing that communists and theocrats want to do, you just want a different general principle. Me, I want to figure out the details that are gonna help everyone muddle along and get more or less what they want out of life. I’m not interested in being beholden to some overarching principle other than the principle of muddling along.
As such, if something becomes the new normal, and a little bit more starts looking a lot more reasonable, I’m cool with that. If a little bit less starts looking a lot more reasonable, I’m also cool with that. The “looking reasonable” thing that you seem to regard as a bug, I regard as a feature. We OUGHT to be doing the thing that looks reasonable.
I’m not sure if we disagree about this issue. I’m can’t imagine you don’t have any general principles that govern how we do things to help everyone muddle along.
In any event, the point here is that Obama was enunciating a general principle in his speech, which is why it’s important here.
The context here is the notion that there could be a slippery slope in raising taxes based on an open-ended rationale. iiandyiiii responded that despite agreeing with the “you didn’t build that” rationale in the 2012 election, he would never raise taxes from 70% to 80%. My point is that he might look at it differently once taxes were already at 70%. It sounds like you might be agreeing with me about that.
As to your general perspective, what counts in these cases is what other people might come to think. Because you are not a dictator. So suppose you think you could live with a small increase now, but if that led to another and another, it would be disasterous. It would be wise for you to oppose that first step, because if you didn’t it would change public opinion about the second step too, and so on.
Of course, if you think the first step is a necessary and wise one, then you don’t automatically oppose it for what it might lead to. That would merely be one consideration to be balanced against others. But if you were ambivalent or moderately opposed to the first step, then the prospect of it changing public opinion about the second might galvanize you to oppose it more strenuously. (Which is what Republicans were attempting with the “you didn’t build it” campaign.)
That’s not exactly what I said. I said that the argument he used would not persuade me to raise taxes from 70% to 80%, but I do find it persuasive for the levels of taxation he does propose.
My apologies.
(Broader point is unaffected.)
I of course there is a limit unless you think that Obama was saying that the government (and society) as responsible for ALL the value created by the enterprise.
I personally don’t subscribe to the notion that taxes are an obligation you incur because you consume public goods. That implies some sort of proportionality between the value you derive from society and the taxes you pay. You pay taxes because there is some nexus between you (or the income you earn) and the taxing authority that taxes you. In every case, you have the ability to sever that nexus, it might require moving to another country but you can do it.
Obama was probably engaging in a bit of straw man because his comments make the most sense when addressing folks who think taxation is theft. The argument for raising taxes on the rich is an equitable argument that I think Elizabeth Warren is much better at making.
In a democracy, it hardly matters what “mindset” is being displayed.
I disagree with some folks who think that we will just legislate bread and circus to ourselves. I think one of the advantages of a well educated and literate population is that you avoid that sort of trap. A literate democracy will correct itself before it goes too far off the rails. I think right now there are a lot of monied interests that are trying to prevent some of that correction but a democratic society where so much of the wealth is concentrated in so few hands is unsustainable. It takes a particular breed of Republican to think that there is nothing wrong with the sort of income and wealth disparity that we have seen over the last few decades. Republicans generally agree that there is a problem with thsi sort of disparity, they just think that redistribution is a horrible way of going about fixing the problem. Their alternaives tend to be really shitty attempts to avoid anything that would involve redistribution of wealth (because they think the market is better at determinaing the distribution of wealth than anything a human could devise, which is obviously false).
From almost every perspective other than Objectivism, it is a good idea to take one dollar from the richest in society (by force if necessary) and give it to a starving child. There comes a point where taking a marginal dollar from the rich is not justified by the needs of the poor but we seem to be doing the opposite.
Does iiandyii think that taxes are “voluntary”
He wasn’t saying that and he doesn’t believe that and he is not about to institute a 100% tax rate.
But the way he presented that argument has no upper bound. Even without allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for those over $250K the tax code was still highly progressive. If you can get up and just blithly say “well the government contributed to your income so we’re entitled to take some more of it” then there’s no reason why you couldn’t repeat that same process ad infinitum.
I doubt it. That is not a serious position in today’s world.
It matters an enormous amount. In fact, it’s the main thing that matters.
Politicians run for office and they get teams of smart policy wonks and pollsters and consultants to carefully craft detailed policies and positions that appeal to this group but won’t alienate that group too much, and so on. These are very weak indicators of what the guy will actually push for once he gets elected. And once they’re in office it’s too late. The things to pay attention are his history and his mindset as displayed in less guarded moments. These are much better indicators.
I disagree.
The problems are 1) that the bread and circuses population is constantly growing, and 2) you can always draw the line just high enough to get a majority.
I can’t speak for Republicans but I myself think it’s a problem in some cases and not in others. I have no problem with athletes and entertainers making huge bucks, becasue I think due to modern technology they’ve been given the ability to produce that much in the world and are being rewarded. I do have a problem with fat cat CEOs making that much money because I don’t think they’re really producing that much of value and think they’re making their money by squeezing it out of the peons.
I would rather see some way to figure out how to restructure society such that underserving people would not be unjustly rewarded, rather than just socking it to everyone making more than $X.
In addition, I think people like Obama et al like to talk about Warren Buffet and the like but when they come to tax you they go after people who aren’t worth a fraction of his wealth. A lot of guys making $300K got to be that way by working brutal hours in school and at their jobs while people we now call “underprivileged” were goofing off.
I’m not sure what this is about. There are virtually no starving children in America at this time, and if there are it’s not because of a lack of government programs about it. And what are we doing that’s the opposite?
He doesn’t think so but he chose to use the phrase “ask” which carries that connotation, and which also happened to serve his point by making Obama’s policy seem nicer. Not a big deal, in any event.
Something amazing…
GD thread: Economic conservatives: what changes do you want to make?
I must have over 20 of the most obnoxious right-wingers on this board on my ignore list now.
Not a single one of them has chimed in to that thread. That, to me, tells me a lot.
I guess the good news is that there are over 20 right wingers on this board. Who knew?
So then there is a limit?
So you are just talking about theory not anything that could possibly be argued in real life? Or do you think that this argument could be repeated ad infinitum?
BTW, we have some of the flattest tax rates we have ever had in our history, we have 7 tax brackets.
Hence the use of the phrase straw man.
And human beings (especially educated ones) are capable of seeing consequences.
We allocate too much of the value we create to the owners of capital instead of the owners of labor under the rubric that to do otherwise would be socialism or communism or something like that.
First of all, the 39.6% rate kicks in at $450,000 for marries couples and over $400,000 for singles. I know a lot of guys making $300,000 and they all work hard (in fact they tend to work harder than the folks that make $2,000,000) and while they would all like more money but a few thousand dollars 9or tens of thousands of dollars) won’t make a difference in their lifestyle, it would take several hundred thousand dollars to make a noticable difference in their lifestyle.
Do cutting WIC and food stamps count?
No. Like anything else you would get diminishing returns, of course. As a practical matter there would be any number of other obstacles to instituting a 100% tax rate.
As above, while I think the rationale could be reused ad infinitum, practical considerations would interfere. Like, the country would collapse, for example.
But whether it’s literally and practically ad infinitum or just quite a long way from here is not really what’s relevant.
Number of brackets is less important than the variation in rates between the brackets. And plus, there are all sorts of other progressive aspects of the tax code, e.g. the EIC and the per child tax credit phasing out at higher levels. Plus the various social assistance programs, as discussed elsewhere.
That doesn’t cut it.
If Obama had said explicitly that he was addressing people who think all tax is theft, and I was objecting that this is not a serious position in today’s world, then you could respond by saying it’s a strawman. But there was nothing in Obama’s words that indicated that he was addressing such a position, and you’re just inserting this interpretation into his words. But it makes no sense for him to make no mention of this and expect people to just figure out that he meant to address something that is not a serious position in today’s world, let alone a part of his current campaign. So your interpretation is very far-fetched.
There’s rarely complete certainty about consequences, and economics is complicated enough as it is. Throw in a lot of short term self-interest and people will buy into whatever theory that allows them to continue to support their own interests.
Of course, there would be some educated people capable of seeing the consequences. But there’s nothing to say that these people would be a majority. Especially since, as noted, you could always draw the line between the underprivileged who need help and the rich bloodsuckers who need to pay their fair share at whatever point you need in order to appeal to a majority. Or even if you don’t, you could always pretend to. Talk a lot about Warren Buffet, for example. Or Mitt Romney.
I disagree. The rates of return on capital for safe investments is very low. After that you’re rewarding risk, which is something else.
Obama didn’t get everything he wanted, with the HOR controlled by Republicans. But what he campaigned for was an increase for couples making over $250K or singles over $200K. So that’s what’s relevant in interpreting his speech.
Like Obama’s argument, yours is also one that could be repeated again and again. A few thousand dollars more won’t change their lifestyle. At that point a few thousand more also won’t change their lifestyle. And so on and so on. I don’t think that’s a proper way to look at it.
No, it doesn’t. Both because these do not amount to taking money from poor people to give to rich people, and because no children are going to starve as a result of any of these cuts.
When I was more familiar with WIC than I am now, the subsidies were ridiculously generous, and people who were lucky enough to qualify for WIC would share their bounty with friends and relatives who were deemed too rich to qualify for the program, but this info dates to the 90s. And I don’t know about Food Stamps. But in any event, no children are starving or going to starve.
These seems like such a silly thing to argue about. When someone says something like “a few thousand dollars more won’t change their lifestyle”, everyone understands it to mean “a few thousand dollars more (from what they’re paying now at a rate of xyz%) won’t change their lifestyle”. It does not follow that the argument can be repeated again and again, because everyone understands that’s what is meant.
I don’t see your point. If “a few thousand more is not going to hurt them” is a valid argument, then the sky is the limit, as long as its broken down into enough intervals.
This is the Sorites Paradox, and it crops up in many different areas of social policy. The answer is that sometimes we draw a line without having a clear first principle for doing so (say, putting the drinking age at 18), understanding that at some point we may change that line.
Tax rates are no different. What works right now may not work later. That’s ducky.
“A few thousand more” is a specific value (give or take). So what’s being proposed is “Value X will not hurt them”. So the sky is not the limit, because “a few thousand more” is a specific value that is being proposed.
It’s not clear to me whether you’re agreeing or disagreeing with me.
It would seem to me that what you write is consistent with what I’m saying. That being, that “it’s only a small distance from Point A to Point A+X”, when the same applies to any Point A on a long scale, is not a valid argument.
But once you add the specific value of “a few thousand more”, then it will continue to be true that “a few thousand (additional) more will not hurt them”. So if you’re consistent with that approach, the sky is the limit.
Of note, this does not apply solely to rich guys. You could apply it to anyone at any income level, though on a different scale. Let’s say you cut the family’s food stamps $1 a month. Is that going to hurt them? OK, let’s cut it. New starting point. Now: let’s say you cut it $1 a month. Is that going to hurt them? And so on.