And I’d like to see numbers on just what percentage of small million-dollar family farms are being sold because Farmer John croaked and his estate couldn’t afford the taxes. A responsible small business owner plans for such contingencies. I’m not sure why the conservatives cry that the relatively well-off Farmer John didn’t plan for his business in the event of his death, but sneer at people who have to file bankruptcy because they couldn’t afford having cancer or getting into a serious car accident. I’m wondering how the numbers stack up–how many bankruptcies vs. how many family farms sold?
Can’t argue with that. If anyone knows nutshells, it’s SA.
You missed the point of my snark, which is that the right is pretty arbitrary in making a distinction between “America”, which patriotism demands we support, and “the government”, which is an evil “other”.
What do people think the Flag even symbolizes? The US government!
Stuff and nonsense! The flag represents America. The U.S. Government is trying to take over America! As the Russians were resisted by the Wolverines, so is the US Government resisted by the Stinking Badgers!
Yes, America! You need some Steeeeenking Badgers!
Whenever you’re ready. See post #176
So you don’t want to return to the 50s after all then.
Yes, thank you.
I disagree, on two counts. First, to refer to the nation’s money supply as a “pool” is a misnomer, in my opinion. “Pool” suggests an aggregate supply or amount intended to be available for individuals or groups to draw upon or to keep for ready use. Cite This is not so. The nation’s money supply is mostly individually held and independently used. The only way in which it is in aggregate is in coming up with a grand total of individually owned dollars. In other words, it isn’t a pool to be drawn from – it’s a sum.
Secondly, as I mentioned just above, we don’t “draw” from that aggregate sum. we EARn additional dollars by virtue of our efforts, and once we have them in hand, they become part of that aggregate total. This is how economies grow. There isn’t a finite, unchangeable amount of dollars floating around. When people are productive, additional wealth is created.
So no, the nation’s dollars are not a pool, and people don’t draw money from that pool or anywhere else (apart from what the government takes and redistributes, that is).
Again, I disagree. As I just explained, the nation’s economy isn’t a pool. And while the word “distributed” might technically be accurate, I believe it too is a misnomer. “Distributed” makes the way it’s spread about sound like a deliberate action. In other words, it sounds like some outside entity is deciding where the nation’s money should go and is doling it out accordingly. This too isn’t so. The nation’s money supply is being created and shifted about by the independent actions of millions of people. Those actions result in a distribution, but that distribution is not the result of people working in concert with one another to bring it about.
Though I don’t know it for a fact, I will take for granted that you are correct that the income disparity between the rich and poor is increasing. My response is: “So what?”
Again, the nation’s money supply is not finite. It isn’t necessary for a rich guy to lose a dollar in order for a poor guy to make one. So it doesn’t matter one whit if the rich are getting richer. The poor still have just as much in the way of opportunity and money-making ability anyway.
I have a neighbor whose wife came here legally from Mexico some years back. She has worked her way into a very good job with McDonald’s in which she oversees six of their restaurants, with three more coming up soon. She works for a guy in his sixties who came here from Mexico and started out as a young man washing dishes for McDonald’s. By dint of hard work, good instincts and a focus on running his stores properly and adhering to high standards, he now owns and operates thirty McDonald’s restaurants and is a millionaire several times over.
NOBODY has suffered financially because of the money he has made! NOBODY!
So it’s specious and fallacious to say “the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.” It creates the impression that the nation’s money supply is fixed and that who gets what dollars is a zero-sum game. This simply isn’t so.
So if the poor are getting poorer (which isn’t really the case, as is shown by reading between the lines of your post where you say they are poorer “relative” to the rate at which the rich are getting richer. The fact is they are not really getting poorer, they just aren’t gaining wealth at the same rate as the rich) it isn’t caused by the rich soaking up too much of the available money.
Again, there is no one with money who is keeping anyone from earning more for themselves. As I said way upthread, I won’t earn one dollar less in my life because Bill Gates has fifty-billion dollars, and I won’t earn one dollar more if he loses it all. If the poor are getting poorer, it’s because of factors other than the money supply. My guess is that to a large degree it’s the fault of the media, politicians, and the the government. The media because it convinces them that the deck is stacked against them; politicians because they too try to convince the poor that the deck is stacked against them and that the solution is to elect politicians who will take it from others and give it to them; and the government by virtue of social programs that keep people dependent on the government and cause them to view those with money as the enemy and persuade them that the only way they can get their “fair” share is if the government takes it from the enemy and gives it to them. All of this stifles initiative and creates a feeling of hopelessness among the poor, and in my opinion this is the reason the poor are “getting poorer” in the relative sense you mean.
What needs to be done is to educate the poor to the fact that if they are willing to work to make it happen, they can indeed become comfortable, affluent or even rich themselves.
But of course that’s a “square” position, it sounds hard, and it doesn’t attract votes. So to the degree that the poor are being held back by this kind of thinking (and not to sound Randian here) it really is there own fault. And to the degree that they are being held back by feelings of hopelessness and defeat, it’s the media’s, the politicians, and the government’s fault.
Hopefully I just have.
I never said I did. It’s your leftie compatriots here on the board – those who are so fond of the vulgarity and crassness and beligerence that characterize life in America today – who make that claim. I would merely like to see adults begin to dress like adults again rather than going everywhere looking like they just left their kids’ soccer game; and I’d like to see people being polite and considerate of one another like they were prior to the changes that occurred in the late sixties (not just the fifties, get it?); and I’d like to see vulgarity and crassness and smart-assedness cease to be the rule in entertainment and day-to-day public life. I don’t much care how people behave when they are in private, but since we all have to live together I think it’s important for people to behave according to a higher standard when out amongst the rest of us.
I don’t know what the percentage is.
If you are only going to teach your pony one trick, it should at least be an entertaining one. Old people complaining abut the next generation is as old as the hills. Oldsters complained about bobby soxers, bobby soxers complained about Elvis, Elvis fans didn’t like the Beatle’s haircuts, the Beatles thought that hippies were too political, the hippies thought there kids were too materialistic, and on and on. Kids dress to annoy their parents and stand out from the prior society. Saddle shoes, sandles, pegged pants, bell bottoms, long hair, short hair, saggy pants have all been controversial. Unless you wear a grey wool suit, white shirt, tie, and Fedora, you’d look too wild for the folks in the 40s.
But more importantly, the utopia in your dreams had higher taxes and more unionized workers than we have now. If you were transported back then you’d be sitting at the all-white Woolworth’s lunch counter, ranting about high taxes, and complaining about the shiny suits the coons in Glenn Miller’s band wore and how much better things used to be when people played songs the way they were written instead of going all fancy with improvisation.
Yadda, yadda, yadda.
The fact of the matter is that the issue is much larger than the height of womens’ skirts, saddle shoes or Glen Miller. Everything about society got turned upside down starting in the late sixties and this country is much worse off as a result. And spare me the “coon” shit! I was taught not to talk like that in the fifties. How the hell did that happen? I remember playing with black kids in the playgrounds of drive-in theaters in the fifties. In the “white part of town,” no less. How the hell did that happen? I thought blacks were being hung from every corner street lamp in the fifties!
Oh, wait…it’s because the fifties weren’t like you were taught.
And besides, why do people have to be racists in order to be civil?
Answer: They don’t!
Dumbass.
Excellent post, Starving Artist. But I have a nagging feeling it’s all for naught. Liberals really do think the economy is a zero-sums game:
-
They think raising taxes will automatically increase revenues to the government. Because they have never taken an Econ 101 course, they are completely unfamiliar with Laffer Curve.
-
They believed a dollar earned by an evil rich person is a dollar taken from a poor, disadvantaged person. Because they have never taken an Econ 101 course, they are completely unfamiliar with the Multiplier Effect.
I still contend that the reason liberals and socialists want to raise taxes on the rich has absolutely nothing to do with wanting to increase revenue to the government.
First off, might I mention that complaining about the decline of civility in society while simultaneously calling someone a dumbass is pretty high on the Unintentional Comedy scale?
Secondly, assuming your initial premise is correct and that civil society has been in decline since the Kennedy assassination, might I also suggest alternative reasons for it? Throughout the 1950s, the highest marginal tax rate was 91%. This means that those in the top income bracket could only keep 9 percent of what they made above and beyond the highest income bracket. This started getting lower in 1964–down to 77%. In 1980, when Reagan entered offce, it was 70%, and had been throughout the 70s.
Reagan first cut that to 50%, then down to 38.5, then 28. Bush Sr. kept that for 2 years, then raised it–leading to outrage, IIRC. Clinton raised it again, to 39.6. My numbers only go to 2003, but Bush Jr. started another downward trend–in '03 it was back down to 35%.
So right around when you say society started declining, our top marginal tax rate started plummeting. Now, you may disagree, but I think that the decline of civilized society not is all about bare midriffs, loose women, and the F-word. Instead, I think there’s a larger theme at work here–that when the rich became richer and were not required to distribute the vast majority of their excess wealth toward the upkeep of said society, that it inherently became less civilized. This was the beginning of the “I’ve got mine, screw you and yours” attitude that is so prevalent amongst the Rand Rovers of the world. That attitude is pervasive and will lead to the decline of society MUCH faster than a middle finger ever will.
So we’ll make a deal. I’ll wear long skirts and never say fuck again, and we’ll tax the top income-earners at 91%. Sound good? Doubt it. So what you idealize about the 50s certainly isn’t a fiscal thing at all, is it?
I don’t think many people even try to understand how it works - and it is on the level on Econ 101, not some in depth economic theory involving algorhythms and obscure facts.
I think that it’s almost all because of envy and class warfare. The arguments coming from their side never seem to stand up to basic economic function, and always end up being based on emotion and hate.
It’s almost sad, since my kids and grandkids are going to have to pay for their ignorance.
-
Econ 101 teaches you that raising taxes raises revenue. So do the actual facts and evidence of US taxes and revenues, particularly since WW2.
-
The multiplier effect is a perfect example of why there should be a massive redistribution of wealth from the wealthy to low/middle income people to make up for the redistribution of wealth from low/middle income people to the wealthy that we’ve seen over the last few decades. Right now a huge chunk of the national income is being earned by the top 1% of earners and more and more of it is invested by them in capital markets where it’s causing bubbles to form, and burst as we’ve seen recently. If some of this money was redistributed to low/middle income people they’d actually spend it, causing demand to soar, businesses to hire more staff to meet demand, those new employees adding to demand and the whole virtuous cycle fuelling an economic boom – the good old multiplier effect!
The fact that so much of the national income is increasingly concentrrated in the hands of a small number is actually the number one problem we have, maybe excluding the lack of regulation of the financial system. Until it’s fixed we’re going to have an unstable economic system. Over the next decade or so our leaders are going to try everything but redistributiing wealth to fix the system until economic circumstances force their hand. It’s a shame Obama isn’t actually a secret revolutionary determined to make the American economy more socialistic, because that’s what it needs, at least as far as tax policy/financial regulation/healthcare goes.
I agree that more people should take Econ 101. Maybe in order to be able to vote they should have to pass an Econ 101 test so that clueless dummies who don’t have the first idea what they’re talking about can be lied to and misled by a political party’s disingenuous and misleading economic policies.
Read this article about the relationship between GDP, taxation and revenue. I am not being lied to and misled - you’re being led by your heart and not using your head…
Yeah, some guy from the Hoover foundation being quoted on the WSJ op-ed page. All that’s missing is something from the Heritage Foundation.
May 20 2008 12:05am EDT
Lying With Charts: WSJ Edition
In an Op-Ed in the WSJ today, David Ranson of H.C. Wainwright puts forth this chart showing that overall tax revenues as a percentage of GDP have remained remarkably stable even as the top marginal tax rate has fallen:
http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/odd-numbers/2008/05/20/lying-with-charts-wsj-edition/?rss=true
That’s about the 20th time recently I’ve seen someone post an opinion piece as proof of something.
The only one who thinks that this is a “law” is Hauser himself. It is a crude observation highly dependent on the years of its selection. It is unsupported by any formal model, theory, or even rigorous hypothesis. It is likely an artifact of the data as much as finding patterns in any set of digits of pi is. The fact that some people think this supports supply-side economics suggests that ideologically motivated people will believe just about anything.
Conservatives take Econ 101 but apparently never make it to Econ 201, so they toss around economic theories without anything more than the most cursory idea of what they mean, and assume that they apply in all situations.
Incidentally, the Laffer curve is the brainchild of John Maynard Keynes, the man who gave the world deficit spending- so by rights you should cry and complain about it, shouldn’t you? In any case, it’s almost totally useless, because there’s no reliable way to determine which side of the curve you’re on at any given time.
Oooh! Reductionist rhyming chants! Must be time for a revolution or something.
That article (and “Hauser’s Law”) are ridiculously misleading. The top marginal rate doesn’t tell us anything about taxation other than how much ~0.5% of the population are paying.
It totally ignores the “engine which drives the US economy”- as conservatives are so fond of describing it- small business.