How the GOP Became the Party of the Rich

[Huey Freeman]

http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/4762/60203008.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/100/60203008.jpg/)

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...-rich-20111109 (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-the-gop-became-the-party-of-the-rich-20111109)


The nation is still recovering from a crushing recession that sent unemployment hovering above nine percent for two straight years. The president, mindful of soaring deficits, is pushing bold action to shore up the nation's balance sheet. Cloaking himself in the language of class warfare, he calls on a hostile Congress to end wasteful tax breaks for the rich. "We're going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share," he thunders to a crowd in Georgia. Such tax loopholes, he adds, "sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying 10 percent of his salary – and that's crazy."

Preacherlike, the president draws the crowd into a call-and-response. "Do you think the millionaire ought to pay more in taxes than the bus driver," he demands, "or less?"

The crowd, sounding every bit like the protesters from Occupy Wall Street, roars back: "MORE!"

The year was 1985. The president was Ronald Wilson Reagan.


"The Republican Party went on a tax-cutting rampage and a spending spree," says Rhode Island governor and former GOP senator Lincoln Chafee, pointing to two deficit-financed wars and an unpaid-for prescription-drug entitlement. "It tanked the economy."


Tax receipts as a percent of the total economy have fallen to levels not seen since before the Korean War – nearly 20 percent below the historical average. "Taxes are ridiculously low!" says Bruce Bartlett, an architect of Reagan's 1981 tax cut. "And yet the mantra of the Republican Party is 'Tax cuts raise growth.' So – where's the ****ing growth?"

[Wild Cobra]

You're joking about the title right?

I'd say it's so simple. So many rich are not in with the democrats who want to raise their taxes.

[George Gervin's Afro]

St Ronny would be accused of waging class warfare in today's world.. even he knew..

[boutons_deux]

Venerating St Ronnie by today's Repugnants is just another huge fraud, another Big Lie. Likeable guy, B actor, GREAT professional voice and delivery, a supreme con man, but a disastrous president, but he's way far left of today's nihilistic, sociopathic Repugs. People are suckers for A Sweet Talkin' Guy.

I read taht Wall St donors are giving huge amounts to Scott Brown to defeat Liz Warren. The VRWC intends deny even one objector, a serious, intelligent, fact-backed objector, to their systemic crimes.

[CosmicCowboy]

Calling the money NOT taken from taxpayers "lost revenue" would be funny if it wasn't so indicative of progressives perverted thinking...where does the government enforced redistribution end?

[leemajors]

Calling the money NOT taken from Nontaxpayers "lost revenue" would be funny if it wasn't so indicative of progressives perverted thinking...where does the government enforced redistribution end?

[boutons_deux]

"where does the government enforced redistribution end"

where does the 1%'s avaricious wealth-sucking end?

[CosmicCowboy]

Where does the jealousy for successful people end?

[Drachen]

Where does the jealousy for successful people end?

Yeah, I guess a lot of people here are jealous that those on the top have enough money to affect tax policy to their benefit and the detriment of the country...

[ChuckD]

Where does the jealousy for successful people end?

If you are so fucking successful, why do your taxes need to be constantly cut? People back in the 60s were wildly successful paying 55% income taxes. Why should you only pay 35% as the top rate?

Where does the disregard for poor people end?

[Drachen]

If you are so fucking successful, why do your taxes need to be constantly cut? People back in the 60s were wildly successful paying 55% income taxes. Why should you only pay 35% as the top rate?

Where does the disregard for poor people end?

The lowest top tax bracket in the 60s was 70%. The highest was 91%. So your point is even stronger.

[Adam Lambert]

after desegregation, we had to let the wealthy keep more of their money so they can afford to stay away from the negro without govt help

[CosmicCowboy]

The lowest top tax bracket in the 60s was 70%. The highest was 91%. So your point is even stronger.

There were also TONS of deductions. Hell, ALL interest was deductible including credit card interest (not just mortgage interest) Sales tax was deductible "hobby" losses were deductible (example, you could buy a ranch and run it as a business and deduct your "losses" every year...)...the trade off for giving up all those deductions (which actually resulted in a much lower effective rate) was a lower base rate.

Now, you still want to do away with all those deductions and go back to the higher base rate.

You are comparing apples to oranges.

[Drachen]

There were also TONS of deductions. Hell, ALL interest was deductible including credit card interest (not just mortgage interest) Sales tax was deductible "hobby" losses were deductible (example, you could buy a ranch and run it as a business and deduct your "losses" every year...)...the trade off for giving up all those deductions (which actually resulted in a much lower effective rate) was a lower base rate.

Now, you still want to do away with all those deductions and go back to the higher base rate.

You are comparing apples to oranges.

I would be fine with going back to Clinton era levels... you know, the last time things actually worked.

[CosmicCowboy]

We have a spending problem more than a revenue problem. Politicians have simply promised more than they can afford to deliver. You could confiscate ALL the 1%'s wealth and it still wouldn't be enough.

[leemajors]

Where does the jealousy for successful people end?

Probably when they quit acting entitled, looking at those less fortunate as a lower species, and quit insisting on keeping a status quo that drives the world into the ground for their benefit. Or show some basic human traits like empathy and/or compassion. Or hell, even try to make the world a better place for everyone instead of a select few.

[CosmicCowboy]

Probably when they quit acting entitled, looking at those less fortunate as a lower species, and quit insisting on keeping a status quo that drives the world into the ground for their benefit. Or show some basic human traits like empathy and/or compassion. Or hell, even try to make the world a better place for everyone instead of a select few.

In other words, you are a jealous little bitch that thinks you are entitled to share in their success...I get it.

[Drachen]

We have a spending problem more than a revenue problem. Politicians have simply promised more than they can afford to deliver. You could confiscate ALL the 1%'s wealth and it still wouldn't be enough.

Cool, so then you actively supported the gang of six proposal? Seeing as the cuts to spending ratio was 3 to 1... Right?

[Spurminator]

In other words, you are a jealous little bitch that thinks you are entitled to share in their success...I get it.

Yes that's exactly how a reasonable person would interpret that.

[CosmicCowboy]

Cool, so then you actively supported the gang of six proposal? Seeing as the cuts to spending ratio was 3 to 1... Right?

Personally I would accept 3-1 but I want the revenue increase to come from eliminating more credits and deductions and not raising the base rate. i totally agree that hedge fund guys should be paying ordinary income rates and not cap gains rates on their annual income...GE should have paid tax on their income, etc.

[Drachen]

In other words, you are a jealous little bitch that thinks you are entitled to share in their success...I get it.

Greed, it seems, is a pretty base instinct, so it should not be surprising that the wealthy use their money to invest in legislation that will not only keep them in their place, but exponentially increase their wealth. Until they can block that base instinct, and start using their prefrontal cortex, the cycle of wealth consolidation and revolution will continue.

[leemajors]

Yes that's exactly how a psycopath would interpret that.

[CosmicCowboy]

Dude...how many "rich" people do you know? I'm definitely not one but the ones I do know aren't greedy ogres...They are all involved in charitable work and do a lot of stuff that isn't just about them and making money...You are just buying into that same old left wing bullshit stereotype and I personally find it offensive...

[CosmicCowboy]

And how much time/money did YOU devote to "making the world better" last year? I'm not even "rich" and I know I spent over $5000 and devoted well over 200 hours to charitable work last year...

[hitmanyr2k]

You are just buying into that same old left wing bullshit stereotype and I personally find it offensive...


Where does the jealousy for successful people end?


In other words, you are a jealous little bitch that thinks you are entitled to share in their success...I get it.

Just like you buying into the same old right wing bullshit stereotype. You're another parrot...just on the opposite end of the spectrum.

[CosmicCowboy]

Just like you buying into the same old right wing bullshit stereotype. You're another parrot...just on the opposite end of the spectrum.

And that is total bullshit. There will always be someone that makes more than you and someone that makes less than you. It is equally bad to look down on those making less than it is to envy those making more. The critical difference in my opinion is are they TRYING to do better...I have zero sympathy for the leeches on the system that feel they are entitled to "stuff" just for existing.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Where does the jealousy for successful people end?

When having money stops giving grossly disproportionate representation. Its not hard to figure out.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And that is total bullshit. There will always be someone that makes more than you and someone that makes less than you. It is equally bad to look down on those making less than it is to envy those making more. The critical difference in my opinion is are they TRYING to do better...I have zero sympathy for the leeches on the system that feel they are entitled to "stuff" just for existing.

Don't forget the unions GOP-bot.

Who exactly is doing this btw? Specific examples or it doesn't count.

[CosmicCowboy]

Don't forget the unions GOP-bot.

Who exactly is doing this btw? Specific examples or it doesn't count.

I'm sorry, I don't understand the question. Can you expand on exactly what you are asking?

[CosmicCowboy]

As to unions, it is my opinion that Unions have outlived their usefulness and have become bloated bureaucracies that perpetuate mediocrity in the workplace and not meritocracy and principally benefit the union bosses and the politicians they buy. They are totally unnecessary in the modern work environment. aS an example, Toyota trucks are generally considered to be the best made trucks in the world and they are produced by happy, non-union workers in a safe and environmentally friendly work place.

[scott]

As to unions, it is my opinion that Unions have outlived their usefulness and have become bloated bureaucracies that perpetuate mediocrity in the workplace and not meritocracy and principally benefit the union bosses and the politicians they buy. They are totally unnecessary in the modern work environment. aS an example, Toyota trucks are generally considered to be the best made trucks in the world and they are produced by happy, non-union workers in a safe and environmentally friendly work place.

I agree for the most part with your opinion on the usefulness of unions. However, I find the attempts to make unionization illegal to be rather vile and hypocritical.

People should have the right to organize if they choose, just as businesses have the right to not deal with organized labor if they want to. What Free Market justification can anyone present to make unions illegal? Seems like another example of "I'm all for free markets, except when they produce an outcome I don't like."

[boutons_deux]

"They are totally unnecessary in the modern work environment."

the demonization and destruction of the unions by the VRWC is the key reason why real household income, even adding the underpaid wife's income in the 80s/90s, has been stagnant for 30+ years.

Note how the remaining unions and union employees are demonized as overpaid, and to be pulled down, rather than considering non-union employees to be underpaid. The VRWC won't be satisfied until Human-Americans are impoverished and beaten down to docile, grateful, intimidated subservience. That's one reason the VRWC actually wants the disastrous job market to last as long as possible, to keep cutting salaries and benefits to intimidated employees who are mostly 1 or 2 paychecks from disaster.

Unions are not innocent of some pretty bad stuff, but the impoverishment of the non-union workforce is MUCH WORSE. I'll give you a perfect union movement if you give me a perfect employer class. deal?

[CosmicCowboy]

I agree for the most part with your opinion on the usefulness of unions. However, I find the attempts to make unionization illegal to be rather vile and hypocritical.

People should have the right to organize if they choose, just as businesses have the right to not deal with organized labor if they want to. What Free Market justification can anyone present to make unions illegal? Seems like another example of "I'm all for free markets, except when they produce an outcome I don't like."

I think the legislation you are referring to was an attempt to limit the collective bargaining power of public employee unions, not to actually eliminate the unions...AND this excessive power was originally given to them by the politicians they bought. I really do see public employee unions differently than the unions that negotiate with a private company. The UAW going on strike and shutting down an auto plant typically just costs money to the company. If Police, Fire, Teachers et. go on strike it directly affects public safety and well being and really comes down to being thinly veiled blackmail with the public held hostage.

[scott]

Note how the remaining union employees are demonized as overpaid, and to be pulled down, rather than considering non-union employees to be underpaid/

I think part of the reason you don't see this argument being made is that it's not true amongst the people who would generally make this kind of argument.

Unions typically have the effect of standardizing pay, which is beneficial for below average workers and harmful to above average workers. In many "non-skilled" labor environments this isn't a major issue (since the "best" assembly line worker isn't significantly "better" than the average assembly line worker), but if you look at teachers unions, for example, the picture changes.

The best teacher IS significantly better than the average teacher, but that teacher's compensation is not commensurate with their relative skill set. Similarly, the worst teacher's compensation isn't much different than the average (not to mention the worst teacher still manages to have a job despite sucking at it). This tends to drive the most talented out of unionized labor pool.

Empirically, it is true that unionized employees do earn higher wages than non-unionized employees of equal skill set - but this fails to account for the fact that we aren't really considering the best caliber employees in these respective pools (in some cases).

With that said, I support the right of workers to unionize, because why shouldn't they have that right? So long as membership is voluntary and there is no retribution against non-members (some times there are, this is the corruption that needs to be weeded out of unionization), then there is no reason to criminalize it.

[scott]

I think the legislation you are referring to was an attempt to limit the collective bargaining power of public employee unions, not to actually eliminate the unions...AND this excessive power was originally given to them by the politicians they bought. I really do see public employee unions differently than the unions that negotiate with a private company. The UAW going on strike and shutting down an auto plant typically just costs money to the company. If Police, Fire, Teachers et. go on strike it directly affects public safety and well being and really comes down to being thinly veiled blackmail with the public held hostage.

I won't really speak to the specifics of any proposed legislation (because I'm not up to date on them so rather than "I don't know so I just assume" like some other posters, I won't comment at all), but rather the belief of some that unions should not be allowed at all.

[Wild Cobra]

I think the legislation you are referring to was an attempt to limit the collective bargaining power of public employee unions, not to actually eliminate the unions...AND this excessive power was originally given to them by the politicians they bought. I really do see public employee unions differently than the unions that negotiate with a private company. The UAW going on strike and shutting down an auto plant typically just costs money to the company. If Police, Fire, Teachers et. go on strike it directly affects public safety and well being and really comes down to being thinly veiled blackmail with the public held hostage.
I agree.

I think unions had a better mission when they were first formed, but have become more powerful than they still be. I can still respect unions who represent workers of corporations. Still, I am of the opinion that public employees should consider themselves public servants, rather than entitled better than the average person paying their wages. I don't believe we, as tax payers, have a proper advocate in negotiations that actually cares about how tax dollars are spent.

[boutons_deux]

"collective bargaining power of public employee unions,

"not to actually eliminate the unions"

huh? what's the difference?

[CosmicCowboy]

I won't really speak to the specifics of any proposed legislation (because I'm not up to date on them so rather than "I don't know so I just assume" like some other posters, I won't comment at all), but rather the belief of some that unions should not be allowed at all.

At a local level I am more familiar with it from dealing with members of the various construction trades. Many Federal and public contracts require not only that the contractors comply with Davis Bacon requirements but that they actually be union...that along with these huge manufacturing corporations that are union virtually force your big electrical and mechanical contractors to be union...and all their employees then have to join and pay dues to a national trade union that in many cases is not aligned with their own personal political views with the policies they support and the political donations they make...these employees simply don't have a choice if they want to work in their trade...

[Wild Cobra]

At a local level I am more familiar with it from dealing with members of the various construction trades. Many Federal and public contracts require not only that the contractors comply with Davis Bacon requirements but that they actually be union...that along with these huge manufacturing corporations that are union virtually force your big electrical and mechanical contractors to be union...and all their employees then have to join and pay dues to a national trade union that in many cases is not aligned with their own personal political views with the policies they support and the political donations they make...these employees simply don't have a choice if they want to work in their trade...
That's right.

Pay to play.

[scott]

At a local level I am more familiar with it from dealing with members of the various construction trades. Many Federal and public contracts require not only that the contractors comply with Davis Bacon requirements but that they actually be union...that along with these huge manufacturing corporations that are union virtually force your big electrical and mechanical contractors to be union...and all their employees then have to join and pay dues to a national trade union that in many cases is not aligned with their own personal political views with the policies they support and the political donations they make...these employees simply don't have a choice if they want to work in their trade...

That's a good example of the corruption I was talking about that needs to be eliminated for a union system to be effective.

[Trainwreck2100]

As to unions, it is my opinion that Unions have outlived their usefulness and have become bloated bureaucracies that perpetuate mediocrity in the workplace and not meritocracy and principally benefit the union bosses and the politicians they buy. They are totally unnecessary in the modern work environment. aS an example, Toyota trucks are generally considered to be the best made trucks in the world and they are produced by happy, non-union workers in a safe and environmentally friendly work place.

:lmao outlived their usefullness. Sure they have cause major American corps. just love doing right by their employees.

[CosmicCowboy]

:lmao outlived their usefullness. Sure they have cause major American corps. just love doing right by their employees.

Sure, and unions just love doing right by their union bosses.

[Wild Cobra]

:lmao outlived their usefullness. Sure they have cause major American corps. just love doing right by their employees.
FYI.

The best paying jobs I have had were not union. Employers would compete for the best employes. Nice vacation times, profit sharing, stock purchase programs, etc.

I see unions as a crutch for lowest common denominator employees. Unions replace individual bargaining with collective bargaining. I prefer to be paid better than average, than having to average my wages with that lowest common denominator worker.

[boutons_deux]

"best paying jobs I have had were not union"

another logical failure, extrapolating your particular to the general.

I see union-busting as how the 1% crush employees, howto stuff their own pockets and that of their investors with what should be employee salaries.

Real salaries have remained nearly stagnant for 30 years, some have even declined (single male workers since 1975) while the 1% take of the growth in national wealth has exploded. That's how sociopathic, smash-mouth, unregulated capitalism works.

[Trainwreck2100]

Sure, and unions just love doing right by their union bosses.

I didn't say unions weren't corrupt, I've said plenty of times here. They are just as corrupt as the corporations that spawned them.

FYI.

The best paying jobs I have had were not union. Employers would compete for the best employes. Nice vacation times, profit sharing, stock purchase programs, etc.

I see unions as a crutch for lowest common denominator employees. Unions replace individual bargaining with collective bargaining. I prefer to be paid better than average, than having to average my wages with that lowest common denominator worker.

How many union jobs have you had?

[spursncowboys]

Calling the money NOT taken from taxpayers "lost revenue" would be funny if it wasn't so indicative of progressives perverted thinking...where does the government enforced redistribution end?

:toast

[spursncowboys]

We have a spending problem more than a revenue problem. Politicians have simply promised more than they can afford to deliver. You could confiscate ALL the 1%'s wealth and it still wouldn't be enough.






































































































:toast

[spursncowboys]

Probably when they quit acting entitled, looking at those less fortunate as a lower species, and quit insisting on keeping a status quo that drives the world into the ground for their benefit. Or show some basic human traits like empathy and/or compassion. Or hell, even try to make the world a better place for everyone instead of a select few.
I think your pity and automatic victim view point for poor is more thinking of the less fotunate as lower species

[spursncowboys]

When having money stops giving grossly disproportionate representation. Its not hard to figure out.

what other way is more fair? a union rep who makes three times as much as the people paying his budget?

[ElNono]

what other way is more fair? a union rep who makes three times as much as the people paying his budget?

You just agreed with what you answered to.

[Drachen]

lol

[ElNono]

You could confiscate ALL the 1%'s wealth and it still wouldn't be enough.

Wouldn't be enough for what?

[spursncowboys]

it was an honest question. I was showing that they do the same thing. except they aren't getting the money from profit because of them have sing a better product and making a profit. Unions usually make people pay dues. So no it's not quite the same thing.

[spursncowboys]

lol

lmao.

[ElNono]

it was an honest question. I was showing that they do the same thing. except they aren't getting the money from profit because of them have sing a better product and making a profit. Unions usually make people pay dues. So no it's not quite the same thing.

It doesn't really matter how they make their money for what we're discussing. The fact that more money enables to buy more power is what the issue is here.

[spursncowboys]

Right. And what do you think should be the solution?

[ElNono]

Right. And what do you think should be the solution?

Reforming the system in such a way where money isn't as influential?
The campaign financing law that was struck down a while back was a good start. Now we're back to square one.

[boutons_deux]

"Now we're back to square one."

nah, Citizens United has moved us way, way back behind square one. And the Senate Repugs will block any legislation to reverse it.

Corporate-Americans' money = free speech? G M A F B

[spursncowboys]

Reforming the system in such a way where money isn't as influential?
The campaign financing law that was struck down a while back was a good start. Now we're back to square one.
The campaign finance law allowed the media to have way too much power. It took away someone's ability to fight against slander.

[ElNono]

The campaign finance law allowed the media to have way too much power. It took away someone's ability to fight against slander.

Uh? How is that? It actually did the exact opposite. Now you don't have a way to know who's funding what. If that's not taking away someone's ability to fight slander, what is it?

Now you just setup a front company and a bunch of anonymous donors, and you're good to go. Despicable.

[ElNono]

McCain said it best, tbh...

"there's going to be, over time, a backlash ... when you see the amounts of union and corporate money that's going to go into political campaigns"

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'm sorry, I don't understand the question. Can you expand on exactly what you are asking?

What sentence in the quote has you describing an action a third person? I will give you a hint: look at the subjects of each sentence and which of them are third person. Its a good start.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The campaign finance law allowed the media to have way too much power. It took away someone's ability to fight against slander.

WTF are you even talking about?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

what other way is more fair? a union rep who makes three times as much as the people paying his budget?

Votes and polls do not dictate policy or have you not been paying attention? They are supposed to represent every citizen equally. Instead they represent 'persons.'

A better system? How about only US citizens can contribute to campaigns. if you own a business and want to sway political activity then have the company pay you and then contribute it. Same with any other organization.

[Trainwreck2100]

Uh? How is that? It actually did the exact opposite. Now you don't have a way to know who's funding what. If that's not taking away someone's ability to fight slander, what is it?

Now you just setup a front company and a bunch of anonymous donors, and you're good to go. Despicable.

280 million in '10 congressional spending 191 of it went to republicans. We don't see it here cause we are not a battleground state

[Wild Cobra]

I didn't say unions weren't corrupt, I've said plenty of times here. They are just as corrupt as the corporations that spawned them.


How many union jobs have you had?
Four.

[RandomGuy]

There were also TONS of deductions. Hell, ALL interest was deductible including credit card interest (not just mortgage interest) Sales tax was deductible "hobby" losses were deductible (example, you could buy a ranch and run it as a business and deduct your "losses" every year...)...the trade off for giving up all those deductions (which actually resulted in a much lower effective rate) was a lower base rate.

Now, you still want to do away with all those deductions and go back to the higher base rate.

You are comparing apples to oranges.


Tax receipts as a percent of the total economy have fallen to levels not seen since before the Korean War – nearly 20 percent below the historical average. "Taxes are ridiculously low!" says Bruce Bartlett, an architect of Reagan's 1981 tax cut. "And yet the mantra of the Republican Party is 'Tax cuts raise growth.' So – where's the ****ing growth?"

[RandomGuy]

We have a spending problem more than a revenue problem. Politicians have simply promised more than they can afford to deliver. You could confiscate ALL the 1%'s wealth and it still wouldn't be enough.

Debunked. A lot.

1) No one has suggested such a thing.
2) No one thinks it is feasible or desirable, outside a few uber-lefties.

This kind of argument is misleading and unhelpful.

[RandomGuy]

You are just buying into that same old left wing bullshit stereotype and I personally find it offensive...

------------------------------------------


Where does the jealousy for successful people end?


In other words, you are a jealous little bitch that thinks you are entitled to share in their success...I get it.

"Anyone who wants to raise taxes on the wealthy = jealous"

... is not a stereotype?

[spursncowboys]

Debunked. A lot.

1) No one has suggested such a thing.
2) No one thinks it is feasible or desirable, outside a few uber-lefties.

This kind of argument is misleading and unhelpful.the
How is it debunked? Have the dems kept their word and maintained the "pay-go' stance they promised in 06?

[scott]

the
How is it debunked? Have the dems kept their word and maintained the "pay-go' stance they promised in 06?

lol politicians keeping promises

[scott]

We have a spending problem more than a revenue problem. Politicians have simply promised more than they can afford to deliver. You could confiscate ALL the 1%'s wealth and it still wouldn't be enough.

1) I'm curious how you came to the conclusion that our deficit problem is one of spending rather than one of income. Can you explain the methodology used to draw this conclusion?

2) Politicians always promise more they can deliver, all the way back to the election for Class President in elementary school. Try to remember all the promises your class president nominees made back then. My school featured a platform of "Shorter School Days" and "Arcade Games in the Cafeteria."

3) Not that I'm actually suggesting this, but the combined AGI of the top 1% of earners is around $1.3 Trillion/year. In March 2007, American Billionaires alone (that's only 946 people, where as the Top 1% is made up by 1.4 million people) had a combined net worth of $3.5 Trillion. Whereas it is estimated that the total Net Worth of all Americans is ~$55 trillion (2009 date) and the top 1% are estimated to hold 35% of that (2007 data, when total US net worth was actually quite higher) - then the top 1% has a combined net worth of $19.25 Trillion. So, it actually "would make a difference" if we confiscated all of their wealth. [A reminder: this is actually a terrible idea]

[Spurminator]

The meme that "taxing all of the top 1%'s income won't cover our deficit" is the logical equivalent of opposing each proposed spending cut because it won't magically erase the debt all by itself.

[scott]

1) I'm curious how you came to the conclusion that our deficit problem is one of spending rather than one of income. Can you explain the methodology used to draw this conclusion?

2) Politicians always promise more they can deliver, all the way back to the election for Class President in elementary school. Try to remember all the promises your class president nominees made back then. My school featured a platform of "Shorter School Days" and "Arcade Games in the Cafeteria."

3) Not that I'm actually suggesting this, but the combined AGI of the top 1% of earners is around $1.3 Trillion/year. In March 2007, American Billionaires alone (that's only 946 people, where as the Top 1% is made up by 1.4 million people) had a combined net worth of $3.5 Trillion. Whereas it is estimated that the total Net Worth of all Americans is ~$55 trillion (2009 date) and the top 1% are estimated to hold 35% of that (2007 data, when total US net worth was actually quite higher) - then the top 1% has a combined net worth of $19.25 Trillion. So, it actually "would make a difference" if we confiscated all of their wealth. [A reminder: this is actually a terrible idea]

Found some updated date, the total income pool for the top 1% is $2.1T/year.

[CosmicCowboy]

1) I'm curious how you came to the conclusion that our deficit problem is one of spending rather than one of income. Can you explain the methodology used to draw this conclusion?

2) Politicians always promise more they can deliver, all the way back to the election for Class President in elementary school. Try to remember all the promises your class president nominees made back then. My school featured a platform of "Shorter School Days" and "Arcade Games in the Cafeteria."

3) Not that I'm actually suggesting this, but the combined AGI of the top 1% of earners is around $1.3 Trillion/year. In March 2007, American Billionaires alone (that's only 946 people, where as the Top 1% is made up by 1.4 million people) had a combined net worth of $3.5 Trillion. Whereas it is estimated that the total Net Worth of all Americans is ~$55 trillion (2009 date) and the top 1% are estimated to hold 35% of that (2007 data, when total US net worth was actually quite higher) - then the top 1% has a combined net worth of $19.25 Trillion. So, it actually "would make a difference" if we confiscated all of their wealth. [A reminder: this is actually a terrible idea]

Scott, this is not a republican or democrat issue and all are to blame. It is just human nature for politicians to promise more than they can feasibly deliver and kick the can of how to pay for it down the road.

I have repeatedly said I would support tax increases if they were paired with a multiple of REAL spending reductions.

To get this shut under control it's going to take a combination of revenue increases, military cuts, and entitlement cuts. Pain all the way across the board. They don't really have a lot of options left with discretionary spending. I seriously am beginning to believe that our political system will never have the will to confront the problem.

[scott]

Scott, this is not a republican or democrat issue and all are to blame. It is just human nature for politicians to promise more than they can feasibly deliver and kick the can of how to pay for it down the road.

I have repeatedly said I would support tax increases if they were paired with a multiple of REAL spending reductions.

To get this shut under control it's going to take a combination of revenue increases, military cuts, and entitlement cuts. Pain all the way across the board. They don't really have a lot of options left with discretionary spending. I seriously am beginning to believe that our political system will never have the will to confront the problem.

I agree with you. But what you said in this post is different than what you said before in that we have a spending problem, not an income problem. What we have is a deficit problem, and to think it's a spending-only issue or an income-only issue is a mistake in my (professional) opinion.

My biggest beef with both sides is their strict adherence to believe it's a spending-only problem or an income-only problem, and it's the reason we can't get anything done. The biggest hurdle to overcome in Washington is getting both sides to admit it needs to be a combination of spending cuts and tax increases to get our deficit problem under control. Right now neither side will do it and it leads us to zero progress.

A bigger problem is that the politicians strict adherence to one side of the problem or the other is that they've convinced the populace that a bunch of untrue facts are indeed true. I just shot down the meme that "if we confiscated all of the wealth of the top 1%, it still wouldn't be enough". I can shoot down meme from the left too. But people believe these things like they are gospel, when in fact they are false. People spout "we are taxed too much, if we just lower taxes, revenue will increase" based off of the theoretical Laffer Curve without consideration to WHERE on the curve we already are (the empirical evidence suggests we've already passed the peak of the curve to the left, meaning that taxes are too low *if* your objective is find the optimal tax rate that maximizes total revenue).

Too many false beliefs in our political environment, not enough facts.

[ElNono]

280 million in '10 congressional spending 191 of it went to republicans. We don't see it here cause we are not a battleground state

I don't particularly care what team the money was spent on. The problem is that money comes with strings attached, and that is inherently a problem.

[CosmicCowboy]

I agree with you. But what you said in this post is different than what you said before in that we have a spending problem, not an income problem. What we have is a deficit problem, and to think it's a spending-only issue or an income-only issue is a mistake in my (professional) opinion.

My biggest beef with both sides is their strict adherence to believe it's a spending-only problem or an income-only problem, and it's the reason we can't get anything done. The biggest hurdle to overcome in Washington is getting both sides to admit it needs to be a combination of spending cuts and tax increases to get our deficit problem under control. Right now neither side will do it and it leads us to zero progress.

Well, I realize it is an oversimplification, but any time you spend more than you make it is a spending problem. Year after year of spending more than we made has now created a debt/deficit problem.

[scott]

Well, I realize it is an oversimplification, but any time you spend more than you make it is a spending problem. Year after year of spending more than we made has now created a debt/deficit problem.

Its a matter of perspective. You could easily say that spending more than you make is an income problem. As in, "the problem is that I don't make enough income".

To merely say it's either ignores the fact that we are able to influence both.

[CosmicCowboy]

And I DO believe in the Laffer Curve and believe that there is a limit to how much you can increase tax rates in a global economy and still increase revenue.

[ElNono]

My biggest beef with both sides is their strict adherence to believe it's a spending-only problem or an income-only problem, and it's the reason we can't get anything done.

Because those are the political points du-jour. So it's not surprising you see them repeated ad-nauseum.

[scott]

And I DO believe in the Laffer Curve and believe that there is a limit to how much you can increase tax rates in a global economy and still increase revenue.

I believe in the Laffer Curve too. The existence of the theoretical Laffer Curve isn't really in question. What people debate is WHERE on the Laffer Curve we are. Empirical evidence suggests we are left of the peak. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

[CosmicCowboy]

Its a matter of perspective. You could easily say that spending more than you make is an income problem. As in, "the problem is that I don't make enough income".

To merely say it's either ignores the fact that we are able to influence both.

I would LOVE to buy a 56' viking sportfisher but know that I can't increase my income enough to pay for it. Similarly we can't increase national revenue enough to pay for all the things the electorate wants.

[ElNono]

I believe in the Laffer Curve too. The existence of the theoretical Laffer Curve isn't really in question. What people debate is WHERE on the Laffer Curve we are. Empirical evidence suggests we are left of the peak. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

I had this discussion with WC... woe is me... :lol

[ElNono]

I would LOVE to buy a 56' viking sportfisher but know that I can't increase my income enough to pay for it. Similarly we can't increase national revenue enough to pay for all the things the electorate wants.

But we can increase the revenue enough to actually tackle some of the real problem: deficit spending. I concur cuts have to be part of the plan too.

[scott]

Well, I realize it is an oversimplification, but any time you spend more than you make it is a spending problem. Year after year of spending more than we made has now created a debt/deficit problem.

And I might add that I'm not a fan of oversimplifications of anything. Your oversimplification ignores the other controllable variable in the equation (just like saying it's an income problem does). The problem is the result, not the value of the variables in and of themselves. "X" amount of spending or "Y" amount of income will never inherently be too much or too little - because their relative value depends on the other variable.

By making this oversimplification, you invite oversimplified minds to come up oversimplified solutions which don't work in the real world.

[CosmicCowboy]

I believe in the Laffer Curve too. The existence of the theoretical Laffer Curve isn't really in question. What people debate is WHERE on the Laffer Curve we are. Empirical evidence suggests we are left of the peak. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

Would you consider GE, Google, etc. to be a good example? They are international companies that manipulated their businesses to "make" and claim their profit in lower tax countries in the world...

[ElNono]

Also, something else I pointed out many times before, the whole comparison with the house economy is simply not realistic. The government does have a direct way to increase income (through taxing). You don't have such direct way to increase your salary.

[scott]

I would LOVE to buy a 56' viking sportfisher but know that I can't increase my income enough to pay for it. Similarly we can't increase national revenue enough to pay for all the things the electorate wants.

Except we DO have the ability to increase our income enough to pay for it. If the sole objective was to pay off the national debt ("buy the boat" - this boat costs $15.03T based on the National Debt Clock at 11:39am central on 11/21/11) then we would merely have to confiscate 75% of the net worth of the top 1% richest Americans.

Again, I don't suggest we do that or think it is remotely a good idea. But we COULD do it. To say we "can't" in the same way you "can't" increase your income to buy that boat is flat out incorrect.

[scott]

Would you consider GE, Google, etc. to be a good example? They are international companies that manipulated their businesses to "make" and claim their profit in lower tax countries in the world...

I'm not exactly sure what you are asking. Can you clarify?

I'm not talking about the taxes paid by any one person or company (and neither is the Laffer Curve). The Laffer Curve deals with aggregate tax revenue and overall tax levels.

[ElNono]

Except we DO have the ability to increase our income enough to pay for it. If the sole objective was to pay off the national debt ("buy the boat" - this boat costs $15.03T based on the National Debt Clock at 11:39am central on 11/21/11) then we would merely have to confiscate 75% of the net worth of the top 1% richest Americans.

Again, I don't suggest we do that or think it is remotely a good idea. But we COULD do it. To saw we "can't" in the same way you "can't" increase your income to buy that boat is flat out incorrect.

Although you wouldn't be addressing the deficit problem. That clock won't be stopping if you pay off the debt. It would certainly slow it down considerably, given the reduction of interests, but you would still be spending more than what you're bringing in. Unless you obviously made that confiscation an actual policy (bad idea).

[scott]

Although you wouldn't be addressing the deficit problem. That clock won't be stopping if you pay off the debt. It would certainly slow it down considerably, given the reduction of interests, but you would still be spending more than what you're bringing in. Unless you obviously made that confiscation an actual policy (bad idea).

In that (hypothetical & not-actually-suggested) example, my goal wasn't to reduce the deficit, it was just to pay off the debt. And I succeeded. If my goal was to balance the budge (assume it is static where it is now - $1.3T), then I could similarly tax the top 1% at a rate of 61% and I'd have it paid off. Again, "this is an oversimplification" not to mention it's also a terrible idea.

[CosmicCowboy]

I'm not exactly sure what you are asking. Can you clarify?

I'm not talking about the taxes paid by any one person or company (and neither is the Laffer Curve). The Laffer Curve deals with aggregate tax revenue and overall tax levels.

The Laffer curve addresses the "pain threshold" where higher tax rates result in the taxpayer altering their behavior to lower the taxes they have to actually pay and thus decreasing tax revenue even with higher stated tax rates. As a corporate example GE manipulated it's business in order to post profits in foreign subsidiaries who were subject to lower tax rate than the US, therefore the US got zero taxes from GE. If the US tax rates had been lower than the foreign subsidiaries they would have manipulated their business in order to take the profits in the US and pay the taxes on their profits here. at an individual level, it's much like the Beatles denouncing their British citizenship and moving to the US in the 60's when the UK was taking 95% of their gross income in taxes...We live in a global economy and people and businesses have choices.

[ElNono]

In that (hypothetical & not-actually-suggested) example, my goal wasn't to reduce the deficit, it was just to pay off the debt. And I succeeded. If my goal was to balance the budge (assume it is static where it is now - $1.3T), then I could similarly tax the top 1% at a rate of 61% and I'd have it paid off. Again, "this is an oversimplification" not to mention it's also a terrible idea.

Exactly.

[ElNono]

The Laffer curve addresses the "pain threshold" where higher tax rates result in the taxpayer altering their behavior to lower the taxes they have to actually pay and thus decreasing tax revenue even with higher stated tax rates. As a corporate example GE manipulated it's business in order to post profits in foreign subsidiaries who were subject to lower tax rate than the US, therefore the US got zero taxes from GE. If the US tax rates had been lower than the foreign subsidiaries they would have manipulated their business in order to take the profits in the US and pay the taxes on their profits here. at an individual level, it's much like the Beatles denouncing their British citizenship and moving to the US in the 60's when the UK was taking 95% of their gross income in taxes...We live in a global economy and people and businesses have choices.

That can be solved by closing the loophole. If they made their money in the US (and by all means that's where the bulk of the money came from), then they should be paying US taxes. It has nothing to do with the Laffer curve.

[ElNono]

But then we go back to peddling influence for money and the reason such loopholes exist.

[CosmicCowboy]

That can be solved by closing the loophole. If they made their money in the US (and by all means that's where the bulk of the money came from), then they should be paying US taxes. It has nothing to do with the Laffer curve.

Are you sure about that?

take GE again...lets say you initiate a 40% "no loophole" corporate tax.

GE is an international company that is constantly deciding what and where to invest in.

Given an apples to apples choice of investing in a country that taxes them at 9% as opposed to investing in a country that taxes them at 40% the choice is pretty simple and punitive tax rates do nothing but drive businesses offshore.

[scott]

The Laffer curve addresses the "pain threshold" where higher tax rates result in the taxpayer altering their behavior to lower the taxes they have to actually pay and thus decreasing tax revenue even with higher stated tax rates. As a corporate example GE manipulated it's business in order to post profits in foreign subsidiaries who were subject to lower tax rate than the US, therefore the US got zero taxes from GE. If the US tax rates had been lower than the foreign subsidiaries they would have manipulated their business in order to take the profits in the US and pay the taxes on their profits here. at an individual level, it's much like the Beatles denouncing their British citizenship and moving to the US in the 60's when the UK was taking 95% of their gross income in taxes...We live in a global economy and people and businesses have choices.

I think you have a gross misunderstanding of what the Laffer Curve states. Laffer curves are a hypothetical thought game based on the income-elasticity of tax rates, and is really just an extension of the elasticity of the supply of labor on wages.

What you are doing is trying to evaluate international competitiveness of tax rates in a static environment. So, the Maldives (for example) has a 10% corporate tax rate while the US has a 35% corporate tax rate so GE (for example) claims all their income in the Maldives. You suggest that if we merely lowered our corporate tax rate to 9.9%, then GE would claim their income here (assuming no other transaction costs associated). But what if the Maldives lowers their corporate tax rate to 9%? 5%? 1%?

Since the Maldives (in this hypothetical example) are not supplying any real services to GE, their incremental cost to have GE claim their income in their country is zero, and thus would be economically happy with a corporate tax rate on GE of ANY amount over zero. The US, on the other hand, actually bears a cost of GE existing and having hundreds of thousands of employees in the United States, so they simply cannot economically justify a corporate tax rate of 0.01%.

If you view Governments are service providers to the countries that do business there, the US will almost *never* be able to compete internationally on the "price" (tax rate) they charge their "customers" (businesses).

The solution isn't necessarily to get into a "price" war with other countries, it's to stop exempting countries from playing these games. In the end, I think we *would* be better served by having a lower nominal corporate tax rate while eliminating the loopholes they tax, which would result in a higher effective tax rate.

[ElNono]

Are you sure about that?

take GE again...lets say you initiate a 40% "no loophole" corporate tax.

GE is an international company that is constantly deciding what and where to invest in.

Given an apples to apples choice of investing in a country that taxes them at 9% as opposed to investing in a country that taxes them at 40% the choice is pretty simple and punitive tax rates do nothing but drive businesses offshore.

I'm absolutely sure. They did report a $14.2 billion worldwide profits and $5.1 billion profits in US income alone.

It's not that complicated, the US is the country where people actually has the money to spend. They just can't sell what they make at the prices they can sell in the US. They're all accounting shenanigans, much like Haliburton moving their HQ to Dubai.

If they want their hand on those $5.1 billion, then they should pay taxes on them. Right now, they get the cake and eat it too. And it's entirely an accounting sham that can be closed tomorrow if politicians wouldn't be in their pockets.

[ElNono]

If you try to pull what GE did, you'll have your ass hauled to the IRS and charged with tax evasion. Which is exactly what happened with those UBS customers a while back.

GE can pull it off because they're GE.

[CosmicCowboy]

Google does the same thing.

[ElNono]

Google does the same thing.

And they should be paying too. There should be no exceptions. If you or I report a profit, we get taxed. Why should it be different for any other "job creator"?

Ultimately, for companies that abuse the system like that, 1% is too high a tax rate. They're not paying taxes, so you're not getting their money until you close the loophole.

[ElNono]

Google actually did pay a smaller nominal rate by using a double Irish. It's still wrong. Even I know the loophole they abused. There's no reason not to close those loopholes. You make your money in the US, you should pay your fair share.

[CosmicCowboy]

It's a world economy.

[ElNono]

It's a world economy.

It's US income.

[coyotes_geek]

In the end, I think we *would* be better served by having a lower nominal corporate tax rate while eliminating the loopholes they tax, which would result in a higher effective tax rate.

Wholeheartedly agree.

[RandomGuy]

I believe in the Laffer Curve too. The existence of the theoretical Laffer Curve isn't really in question. What people debate is WHERE on the Laffer Curve we are. Empirical evidence suggests we are left of the peak. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

That is the perfect example of the way confirmation bias distorts ideas and concepts into something that they aren't.

The full concept:
A curve showing two axes, one is nominal tax rate, and the other is amount of tax collected. At some point, increasing tax rates nets less and less per unit of increase.

What makes it through the confirmation bias and simplification process of conservatives:
"increasing tax rates nets less and elss per unit of increase"

This then becomes, via the Telephone Game or its newest variant, The Blog That I Agree With Game:
"increasing tax rates doesn't bring in any extra taxes"

This isn't what the original idea states at all, and as you point out, there is fully room on that curve for additional taxes to bring in additional revenues pretty much in line with the scope of the increase, and the evidence we do have indicates that this is fully the case.

[CosmicCowboy]

and the evidence we do have indicates that this is fully the case.

And confirmation bias is equal opportunity for both sides of the argument.

[RandomGuy]

You could confiscate ALL the 1%'s wealth and it still wouldn't be enough [to solve our debt/deficit problem].


[That has been thoroughly debunked as a spurious and irrelevant argument]



the
How is it debunked? Have the dems kept their word and maintained the "pay-go' stance they promised in 06?

It has been debunked, because it isn't a policy solution that anyone is seriously proposing, outside a few hard-core commie nutters. It would be akin to saying "we could stomp on the head of a billions kittens, and that wouldn't solve our problems". No one is proposing we stomp on the head of cuddly kittens, so the notion is irrelevant.

It is an idea that gets shipped around the internet and repeated a lot though, because it sounds plausible, and emotionally appealing.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Its debunked by something called history. Say 1995-1998 or 1951-1956.

As to what RG is saying I will provide a graph for the more visually dependent people.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/18/IvsV_mosfet.svg/400px-IvsV_mosfet.svg.png

The above is the DC response of a type of transistor. Each blue line represents a different supply voltage.

Looking at one individual line you can see how after a certain point an increase in the drain voltage, the current no longer increases thus it tails off. What RG is saying is that what 'conservatives' claim is that the saturation current is true for all cases. IE any increase taxes will not result in an increase in revenue. That is true if you only look at a certain subset but the system as a whole does respond within a certain range.

Prima facia the 'conservative' notion is fucking stupid. I have no doubt that there is a diminishing return and that at a certain point it will provide negative returns but I just want to point out three things.

1) The trickle down economic theory has been proven not to work. We have cut taxes under the notion that it will create growth and revenue. Well guess what it didn't. It didn't in the 1980s its not doing it now. Its fucking stupid.

Now the same group of fuckheads that sold us that shit are trying to feed us the inverse: that raising taxes will kill the economy. If it didn't change going one way then where is the evidence that it would the other way? THE LOGIC WAS NOT TRUE THE FIRST TIME!!! Now its suddenly right? Go fuck yourself if you still buy that shit.

2) We are at historical lows. We have reams of history where the tax rate relative to GDP was much higher and this doomsday scenario did not happen. If you honestly believe that say raising taxes from nothing to something will result in nothing then you are not worth talking to to begin with. Well this is the lowest its been and were supposed to believe that rasing it to levels that have been experienced before is going to do nothing?

3) Not paying our bills does have a direct effect on our economy. For all of Cheney's assertion that deficits don't matter, paying bonds on time does matter as evidenced by the rollercoaster our economy has been on that has been tied directly to other countries ability to pay theirs. Do you already forget the effect that the scare over the budget showdown put everything on hold for a week?

Its time for the baby boomers to pay their fucking bills and quit trying to pass it off to the rest of us.

[Wild Cobra]

At least we know you're not using TTL.

[RandomGuy]

You're joking about the title right?

I'd say it's so simple. So many rich are not in with the democrats who want to raise their taxes.

Here is another thread and post that didn't age well.