Sam, let me first say that it’s nice to see your concern about payroll taxes. I’ve listened to years of conservative politicians saying that people below some threshold pay no taxes, which is clearly false. Thank you for acknowledging this.
Well, since we’ve seen no specific numbers from the campaign, that’s is purely speculative.
If there were 10.4% worth of payroll taxes, sure, but there isn’t. I’m just puzzled how you arrive at that figure.
I’m sorry, please help me out here. There’s been a phase-out of the personal exemption and deductions at high income levels for years, this is nothing new. Are you maybe referring to the Pease limitation? In any case, how do you say that removing a deduction or exemption is a specific tax rate? More of your income is taxable, but its taxed at 39.6%, not some higher rate. You’ve merely pushed the effective rate closer to the marginal rate. If 100% of your income is taxed at the top rate (and it never would be), its still only 39.6%
Look - the numbers I’m giving you are from the Tax Policy Center - a non-partisan, widely quoted organization. Other highly regarded economists such as Greg Mankiw agree with those numbers.
As for payroll taxes… You do know that they are supposed to fund the employee’s own retirement, right? If you offer refundable tax credits that allow people to collect social security and Medicare without having to pay into it, you’re turning an insurance program into a welfare program. Of course, that’s also the rationale for the income cap - since the benefits cap out at a certain income, so should contributions. Remove the cap on contributions without increasing the cap on benefits, and you also turn Social Security into a welfare program. Obama is turning a national retirement savings system into a redistributionist welfare program.
This is yet another way in which the U.S. is moving against the world tide. Here in Canada, our retirement contributions cap out at a fairly low income. If Obama raises your cap, that alone will make your tax system more progressive than ours.
Being from a country where social-democracy has played a large role, and arguably still does, and not from America, I can’t really tell whether fear of socialism is really that strong in the US, nor do I have much of an idea what causes that fear. I have this to say, though: Any statements that link the Democratic Party to socialism is either disingenuous or ignorant, or both. The person making such a statement either has no idea whatsoever of what socialism or social democracy meant or means in any of the countries where it had much of an influence - an influence that, IMHO, ranges from soul-crushing totalitarianism to being highly beneficial. Or the person making such a statement is doing so in the full knowledge that such a link is insanely far-fetched, about as far-fetched as any real link with any real terrorist, or, heavens forbid, Muslims. The only reason such a person would be telling such lies is to deliberately generate fear for and hatred of the other party’s candidate.
However, based on this reference, your assertion that there is anything “racial” about the issue appears to be a bit of a red herring. In chapter 4 of your referenced work, the authors point to the 1990 study by Bowser, Fullilove, and Fullilove that notes that the issues faced by racial and ethnic groups are most appropriately addressed by attempting to ameliorate the conditions of poverty in which they live, not by assuming that there is anything inherent in their ethnicity that leads to particular behavior.
Unless you have some evidence that the behavior of the Irish or Italian or Jewish immigrants who were confined to city slums differed remarkably from the behaviors of the blacks and Hispanics who are currently housed there, the injection of “race” seems to have no bearing on the topic.
I suspect that one could, indeed, make a case that people in crowded conditions of poverty often engage in risky behavior in matters of finance, sexual relations, etc. Making that a matter of ethnicity seems a pointless exercise.
The easiest way to test your hypothesis is to look at suburban or rural counties. I will predict that there is a racial/ethnic pattern to levels of serious violence; incidence of HIV; etc…
With the quibbling over tax rates a few percentage points either way, we seem to have left behind “socialism” as a black-and-white issue.
And I should think that, if taxes will still be much lower than they were prior to 1987, we should have a little perspective rather than ranting about ideological extremism.
Having said that, I’ll reiterate my pet issue, which is that conservatives have been contributing to the economic mess by hanging a millstone on efforts to promote family planning.
Not if there’s something about urban slum living itself that leads to higher incidents of violence, incidence of sexually transmitted diseases, etc. The easiest way to test the hypothesis is to look at two communities of similar demographic and socioeconomic status but racially different and see how they compare.
I disagree. To test whether “urban slum living” is responsible for various negative behaviors of a group, one could look at a similar group, but without the “urban slum living” and compare.
I do agree that another way to test the “urban slum living” hypothesis is to look at different groups which live in “urban slums.” However, I doubt there is good apples-to-apples data for Jews or Italians living in New York City at the turn of the last century, for example. For example, what good would it do to compare HIV rates?
Perhaps one could compare Chinatown with Bed-Stuy or something.
And the clearest indication that you are probably mistaken is that the incidences run highest where the population is both high and compact–urban, not rural situations–regardless of ethnicity. The white flight from the late 1940s through the 1980s has created a disparity in population density by ethnicity that gives a false impression regarding the actual contributing factors.
Try running your study using only urban dwellers and see whether ethnicity actually makes a significant difference.
ETA: Sorry. I posted as soon as I got off work when I opened the thread and I had not scrolled down to see the exchange between Captain Amazing and brazil84.
I think their are a couple reason for intense fear socialism. Personally I am in no way afraid of socialism, I dislike socialism, I think it is horrible unethical, and in the end extreme forms of it result in slavery and mild forms of it are partial slavery. But the primary reason why people are afraid of it is because in America we view our selves as individuals, many people in America fear collectivism because they fear the loss of the “I”.
And the second is that the American government is horribly inefficient. Maybe other countries governments are more efficient, but in America it appears that whatever the government touches it messes up. These people who are so afraid of socialism are thinking: " The government cannot even run an education system very well why should I trust it to run health care, or the economy?"
I understand these arguments against socialism but I do not think they are the reason that we should not be socialist, nor are they the reasons why I would never vote for a socialist. I would not vote for a socialist because I think socialism restricts my freedom and my liberty to an extent that I would not be comfortable. This may appear to be self centered but I do not believe it is. I want everyone to have economic freedom, and I actually believe that economic freedom is the most important freedom and If I have the freedom to trade (labor, goods, services) for other (labor, goods, services) then I have a wonderful liberty to live my life as I choose.
Note: I do not think Obama is a socialist, I believe that he would implement things that would constrict my economic freedom so I will not vote for him but so would Mccain, and I will not vote for him either.
Ronald Reagan, in his 1980 inaugural, spoke of an America where “it is always possible to get rich.” Which most of us never will. Thank you, but I’d much rather have an America where it all but impossible to be poor.
And exactly how much “economic freedom”, or any other kind of freedom does someone working two jobs so they can live hand-to-mouth have ? Or someone being crushed by medical bills ? Having all your decisions forced by survival imperatives is NOT freedom; you might as well say someone held at gunpoint has the freedom to choose to be shot.
I don’t understand your point. Do you deny that there exist rural and suburban areas in the United States which have large black and/or hispanic populations?
He has all the economic freedom. He is freely selling his labor for what he desires and needs in life. It is his life, he is the one that needs to pay for it. To coerce someone else to pay for any of another person things subverts individual and personal responsibility.
Or do you not believe in personal responsibility?
Oh, nonsense. Being forced by economic necessity isn’t freedom. You sound like the sort of person who would justify debt slavery, or defend the right of employers to cripple or kill their employees with unsafe work practices.
Not as typically practiced. As an excuse to be a predator and a parasite, to benefit from society and refuse to pay for it. As an excuse to prey upon others and blame them for being victims. As an excuse to sneer at the unfortunate, with the arrogant belief that you will never, ever be unfortunate yourself - or the hypocrisy to turn around and demand help when you do suffer misfortune.
“Personal responsibility” typically translates to “I’m a sociopath, and proud of it !” A hypocritical sociopath, since the last thing such people want is for the people they are ignoring or preying upon to take up such a predatory philosophy for themselves.
If people are responsible for themselves, and only themselves, no one can be a parasite to society. It is only through theft and slavery that one can be a parasite on another mans work! An employer cannot force anyone to do anything, they do it of their own free will. I do not see how you cannot comprehend the difference in coercion and freedom.
I do not know if you were trying to accuse me of being a sociopath or a hypocrite or both, but I honestly wish people would become responsible for themselves. Im not saying that of my free will I will not help some one, because I will. I am saying that coercing me into helping someone is clearly wrong.
Coercion is something that should be used sparingly and we need to be sure that when we use it that we are using for something that is justifiable. Taking from someones labor is not justifiable for any reason, it is theft and slavery.
The root of my view is not evil, as you may have immediately believed, but comes from my strong belief in not initiating violence and my reluctance towards using threats or violence to achieve any ends.
This is true. But it does not negate the fact that people are only responsible for themselves. Their is no dichotomy here.
The difference in society and government is that society is freely engaged in, people choose to engage and affect each other in society, where as the government is an organization of coercion which initiates violence and the threats of violence to get what it wants.
The current hypothesis appears to be that the underclass engages in risky behavior.
You have gone further to express the idea that the specific portion of the underclass that comprises black or Hispanic populations appears to be inherently different, in some way, from the underclass that has comprised other ethnic groups.
My position is that it is the confinement and density of the city that makes the difference, not the ethnic composition of the group. If there are pockets of the underclass scattered about the countryside in rural areas, they may be of any ethnic background. Certainly there are black and Hispanic communities in rural areas. Unless we have evidence that they are having same extreme problems that the inner city groups and that the underclass comprising other ethnic groups–even when confined to cities–are not having those problems, I see no reason to assert that ethnicity has anything to do with the situation.
If you dump your trash in the river, and I live downriver from you, you are responsible for my bad water. I did not choose to have bad water.
If I ask you to stop because you are polluting my water, and you refuse, what recourse do I have? I could move, but that would be coerced: you are forcing me to find good water. How can I get you to stop doing something without coercing you, or without getting enough support from society to coerce you to stop?
