Evoking tom’s rule of disagreement: you must come up with a better analogy. you can’t go criticizing them without offering a better one.

Note: you didn’t actually criticize it. you just said it was idiotic without telling us why.

So what’s wrong with this analogy?

A better analogy would be “it’s like asking a few millionaires to give up their second yacht so that a few hundred drowning people can buy lifejackets”.

“it’s like asking a few millionaires to give up their second yacht so that a few hundred drowning people can buy lifejackets”.

Not THAT is a stupid analogy.

Paul, do you really believe that our system is so screwed up that we have people literally dying of starvation on the streets everyday while millionaires eat fois gras?

Because that seems a little harsh. Not many countries can claim that their poor people have an obesity problem.

Massive tax cuts for the rich are a social welfare program.
Massive prison construction and filling the resulting structures is a social welfare program (just ask upstate NY).

A more appropriate response to this right wing fable is this:

Person A has a 2.80 gpa and Person B has a 2.00 gpa. Person A is told that shse can take 0.50 away from Person B. Person A does so.

Now, there’s a realistic fable for ya.

dcnataro,

Massive tax cuts for the rich are a social welfare program.

But if you cut taxes for everyone, aren’t the rich the ones that will get the most savings, seeing as how they pay the majority of the taxes?

Massive prison construction and filling the resulting structures is a social welfare program (just ask upstate NY).

Ahh. You have an interesting definition of a social welfare program. I suppose you would rather we not build any prisons at all? So what do we do with the violent criminals then?

Your analogy is not even worth arguing against. It makes no sense.

“Person a takes from person b. Discuss.”

Paul, do you really believe that our system is so screwed up that we have people literally dying of starvation on the streets everyday while millionaires eat fois gras?

Yes, I do. And so does anybody with a grasp of the facts. 35 million people in America are “food insecure”, 35% of Americans have had to choose between food and rent at some point in the last year, 28% of Americans have to choose between medical care and food at some point in the last year.

And this “system” that you say is so unscrewed up is being dismantled more every year by all you “I’ve made my pile so you can go fuck off” types.

“35 million people in America are “food insecure”, 35% of Americans have had to choose between food and rent at some point in the last year, 28% of Americans have to choose between medical care and food at some point in the last year.

Since you didn’t site any sources I’ll just go ahead and agree with your facts for the sake of argument. However, your stats don’t equal out to “people literally dying of starvation on the streets everyday”. I want you to produce some bodies. Where are the piles of dead people lined up outside the morgue? Why isn’t PBS covering this?

Yes, I know life is hard. But no one ever said it would be fair, nor will it ever BE fair. I realize this will go over your head, but if you stop people from being able to become rich than everyone will always remain poor.

And a more fundamental problem with your point- why is one of the biggest problems in the US obesity? If poor people are so hungry, why are they so fat?

Uncle:

“Tom’s rule of disagreement” applies primarily to ideas for courses of action.

And given the number of people who apparently need somebody to explain to them why the analogy is idiotic, it would appear that the answer to my question is “It’s not just the ones with radio shows…”

Here are two places to start: #1, which libertarian-types can understand: there’s no fixed-size “pie” of grade points. Person B’s GPA can increase without a matching decrease in someone else’s GPA. #2, I’m not aware of any seriously-proposed program, social-welfare or otherwise, that suggests we ought to distribute wealth exactly evenly across the population (or, for that matter, that we should forcibly transfer wealth in any amount directly from wealthy person A to underprivileged person B).

But those are just the two most obvious layers of stupid on that analogy (and, frankly, I’m surprised at the number of conservatives too dumb to have figured those out for themselves — Kevin, on the other hand, warned me that this would happen). The more you peel back the layers, the less sense it makes.

Tman:
I realize this will go over your head, but if you stop people from being able to become rich than everyone will always remain poor.

Wow, man, that sounds like something a stoned collegiate Republican would come up with…

Of course, you’re attacking a straw man; nobody has suggested that we prevent people from becoming wealthy. Instead, we merely ask that the well-to-do pay the costs of society commensurate with their ability to do so. Given that the top federal tax bracket is currently 35%, and that after deductions, credits, loopholes, etc., nobody’s paying an effective tax rate anywhere close to that, we’re hardly talking about something that would bankrupt the wealthy, here…

there’s no fixed-size “pie” of grade points. Person B’s GPA can increase without a matching decrease in someone else’s GPA.

That’s the whole point of the analogy. It’s ridiculous to think that part of what grade person A earned individually could be given to person b who had nothing to do with their production. But that’s what many socialists want.

I’m not aware of any seriously-proposed program, social-welfare or otherwise, that suggests we ought to distribute wealth exactly evenly across the population (or, for that matter, that we should forcibly transfer wealth in any amount directly from wealthy person A to underprivileged person B).

So you think everything is ok then?

Or are you saying we should propose a program, social-welfare or otherwise, that ought to distribute wealth exactly evenly across the population? Or is the current free market system with relative government controls and regulation ample for now?

What are you saying exactly?

That’s the whole point of the analogy.

No, it’s not. The point of the analogy is to imply that social welfare programs are exactly the same thing as punishing Principled Person A in order to reward Slacker B. You seem to be attacking a straw man version of liberalism.

Anyway, I’ve updated the post above to show you a more thorough debunking.

Or are you saying we should propose a program, social-welfare or otherwise, that ought to distribute wealth exactly evenly across the population? Or is the current free market system with relative government controls and regulation ample for now?

Huh? Whether everything about our current system of government is exactly right or exactly wrong is wholly irrelevant to the fact that the analogy above is complete and utter crap.

As to what my position is, I’m not entirely sure that’s relevant, either, but I’m on the record as saying that a balance between free-market capitalism and some degree of socialism is both necessary and prudent. Pure capitalism can’t work for almost exactly the same reasons that pure socialism can’t. So instead, they must be kept in tension, with neither gaining too great an advantage over the other.

The fact that I was born to middle-class parents in a good school district shouldn’t entitle me to an exponential advantage over someone born to a poor family in a lousy school district, but in practice, that’s exactly how it works. What we should be striving for is a system in which everyone has access to the basic needs of survival (basic food, clothing, shelter, and health care), as well as the tools necessary to get ahead (like education). This doesn’t guarantee success, but it at least guarantees a reasonable chance at success.

The bottom line is that I think it’s possible to strive for some modicum of social justice without arguing for outright socialism, or criminalizing wealth, or any other such straw man you can imagine.

The point of the analogy is to imply that social welfare programs are exactly the same thing as punishing Principled Person A in order to reward Slacker B.

How is that any different from “it’s ridiculous to think that part of what grade person A earned individually could be given to person b who had nothing to do with their production.”?

It is what it is. Dress however you want, but that’s the point of the analogy.

I’m on the record as saying that a balance between free-market capitalism and some degree of socialism is both necessary and prudent. Pure capitalism can’t work for almost exactly the same reasons that pure socialism can’t. So instead, they must be kept in tension, with neither gaining too great an advantage over the other.

Huh? Socialism lost this battle a long time ago. I’m all about a social safety net, but it has nothing to do with that fight. Socialism has never proven to be anything but a vehicle for despotism. That doesn’t mean I don’t believe in regulation of capitalism, however.

What we should be striving for is a system in which everyone has access to the basic needs of survival (basic food, clothing, shelter, and health care), as well as the tools necessary to get ahead (like education).

We have this already. See: Foodstamps, Department of Welfare, public housing, medicaire, medicaid. Now, one can argue the efficiency of these programs, but as I said earlier- OBESITY is a problem with our poor people. I think that proves we have provided the basic necessities.

The bottom line is that I think it’s possible to strive for some modicum of social justice without arguing for outright socialism, or criminalizing wealth, or any other such straw man you can imagine.

Social justice? Once we provided the basic necessities, everything else is socialism, pure and simple.

I want to address your corrections above-

we merely ask that the well-to-do pay the costs of society commensurate with their ability to do so. Given that the top federal tax bracket is currently 35%, and that after deductions, credits, loopholes, etc., nobody’s paying an effective tax rate anywhere close to that, we’re hardly talking about something that would bankrupt the wealthy, here…

The top ten % already pay over 60% of all of the taxes, the bottom 20% hardly pays any taxes at all. Argue about the “effective rate” all you want, the numbers don’t lie. Anytime you have a tax cut it has disproportionate effect on people at the very highest levels because they had already been paying a disproportionate share of total federal taxes.

What you’re saying is that “hey, if we all just pitched in a little more” and that’s ridiculous.

Tman: I guess my little counter fable confused you. Perhaps a little “fleshing out” will help.

The original fable goes like this: A father is having a discussion with his daughter, and she is revealing some “liberal” or “Democrat” tendencies. The following dialogue ensues:

Dad: what’s your gpa?
Daught: 4.0
Dad: what about your friend Jackie?
Daught: she has a 2.0.
Dad: Why is that?
Daught: well she parties all the time and does very little work in her courses.
Dad: well, what would you say to taking a point from your gpa
and adding it to hers.
Daught: why should I do that?! She didn’t work for it!
Dad: Now you’re a Republican.

Here is my counter fable: An affluent father who contributes lotsa bucks to his alma mater (at which his daughter is a “legacy”) sees that his daughter’s gpa is not very high.

Dad: what can I do to help you?
Daught: well, you can talk to the department chairs or the deans
or the provost and maybe help them to go a little easier on me.
Dad: how’s your friend Jackie doing?
Daught: she’s having a difficult time and doesn’t seem to get it.
Her parents are also having a tough time paying for her. Perhaps you could put in some words for her.
Dad: well, she doesn’t come from the right sort of people. She needs to work harder and shouldn’t get any help from us.
Daught: I understand.
Dad: I’m glad you’re still a Republican.

The point I was trying to make in my counter-fable was this:

Thems what has use it to get more for themselves. If this means buying and/or manipulating the system, then that’s what they will do. Morals or principles will always be set aside. And they will always be able to justify it to themselves, as Dad does in my fable.

Now, I don’t think that my counter-fable is the best response to the original. For a better one, see Thom Hartmann’s “A day in the life of Joe Republican”. You should be able to Google it without trouble.

A few more points:

*You many not live in NY State, but those of us who do know full well that prisons were constructed en masse in Republican Upstate
in order to create jobs there. At present, north of the Mohawk, prison jobs are just about the only ones that exist. I call this a welfare program. And I suspect that some of the poor bastards who are there were railroaded (it’s good for business, you know).

*I never said anything to imply that we should have no prisons.

*The top 1% of the income scale has had its wealth expand at a huge rate, while the bottom 90% has been in a state of stagnation or worse. David Cay Johnston has debunked the notion that the rich pay most of the taxes. You see, he takes payroll taxes, sales taxes, and fees into account. Maybe you should give him a read.

*I’m surprised that you think that poverty and obesity are mutually exclusive. In this country, the most affordable foods
are those which are high in fat, salt, and high-fructose sugar.
Evidently, the poorest folks in these parts have just enough money to kill themselves with what they can afford to eat.

*Yes, massive tax cuts for the wealthy are social welfare – to be paid for by everybody else to benefit a small segment of the society. They are also class warfare of a style that borders on obscenity. Have you thought for a momemt about our current circumstances in which we are “at war”, and have to “sacrifice” -
but the most affluent of us (and the corporations) get huge tax cuts THAT THEY WILL NOT GIVE UP? This is welfare and class warfare of a kind so vile that it cries out for punishment.

*Do check out the recent stories about the treatment of our injured troops at Walter Reade. It jives well with my comment just above.

I have a legitimate question for you – what is your net worth and how did you get it?

One last note (I gotta go to bed):

Tman spits out the word “socialism” as if it ends the argument.

It doesn’t.

Any society has to have aspects of socialism in order to be a society.

Socialism is neither inherently bad nor inherently good.
Capitalism is neither inherently bad nor inherently good.

In any era, the challenge is to find the right mix of the two.
And don’t fool yourself, ANY society will have a least a little of both.

I think that our current mess has made socialistic ideas rather attractive. Indeed, for years I have been saying that the right wingers will make a return to left wing thought necessary.

This is happening right now. War works wonders, sometimes.

Tman:

I believe you’re using the word “socialism” in a vastly different way than I am. Social Security, public education, and the federal highway system are all examples of socialism (the good kind). So why you think socialism somehow “lost” escapes me.

Once we provided the basic necessities, everything else is socialism, pure and simple.

Actually, even providing the basic necessities themselves (that social safety net you claim to be “all about”) is a form of socialism. But what I’m interested in is finding out where anyone’s arguing for providing anything more than just “the basic necessities.” The only dispute I’m aware of is over whether things such as basic health care constitute “basic necessities” or not.

OBESITY is a problem with our poor people. I think that proves we have provided the basic necessities.

Then you’re ignorant of the issues surrounding obesity among the poor. It’s a complex issue, which you’re trying to oversimplify. Two basic flaws in your argumentation, however, are easy to point out: First, it assumes (incorrectly) that most or all poor people are obese. Second, it ignores the fact that often times, the food that poor people can most easily afford is fatty junk food. If the choice is between fresh asparagus for $2.99/lb or a McDonald’s Big & Tasty for 99¢, what do you think they’re going to choose?

The top ten % already pay over 60% of all of the taxes

A statistic that’s often thrown out there by anti-tax conservatives, but meaningless without also knowing how much of the income and wealth that top 10% controls. If they have 30% of the income/wealth but pay 60% of the taxes, then that does seem unfair. If they have 75% of the income/wealth and pay 60% of the taxes, suddenly it seems like they’re getting a bargain. I don’t know what those numbers actually are, but I’d bet dollars to donuts that it’s a lot closer to the latter scenario than to the former.

And by the way, your statistic does not in any way “correct” mine. A single person who made $1 million in 2006, took only the standard deduction, did not itemize, had no income from capital gains, etc. (an absurdly pessimistic scenario, but work with me) paid an effective federal income tax rate of 32.69%. Well under the 35% top bracket. With capital gains/losses, itemized decutions, etc., this hypothetical person probably winds up paying a lot less than that, even. (And once you factor in the regressive payroll taxes, sales taxes, etc., the taxes paid as a percentage of income start to flatten considerably between wealthy and not-so-wealthy.)

Anytime you have a tax cut it has disproportionate effect on people at the very highest levels because they had already been paying a disproportionate share of total federal taxes.

This is only true if tax cuts are across-the-board rather than targeted. Targeted tax cuts can still mean a cut for everyone without disproportionately benefiting one group over another. If, for example, you cut only the bottom tax bracket, leaving all others alone, this results in a cut for absolutely everyone who pays income taxes. Our most recent rounds of tax cuts, however, cut the top bracket from 39.6% to 35%, a reduction of almost 12% that exclusively benefits the wealthy and no one else. (The top bracket applies only to people with taxable incomes — after deductions — over $330,000 per year.) Why such a deep cut for the top bracket? Cuts to the lower brackets would still benefit everyone in the higher brackets, and they would be targeted to those people who are most likely to put the additional pocket money directly back into the economy.

Social Security, public education, and the federal highway system are all examples of socialism (the good kind). So why you think socialism somehow “lost” escapes me.

Yes, social security is bankrupt, the public education system is getting lapped by Japan and India, and the federal highway systems have made small town values obsolete. Congratulations! You prove my point again!

Show me another great social issue and I’ll show you another government program that’s made it worse.

Actually, even providing the basic necessities themselves (that social safety net you claim to be “all about”) is a form of socialism.

It’s not a “form of socialism”. That, by definition, is soclialism- “Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.”

I’m not talking about providing the basic necessities to everyone regardless. I’m saying have a “social safety net” so that bodies aren’t lined up in front of the morgue, not let’s control the basic necessities so that no one ever has to work to eat.

“The only dispute I’m aware of is over whether things such as basic health care constitute “basic necessities” or not.”

Well, what’s “basic” healthcare? Childbirthing? Flu shots? MRI’s? Cancer treatments? Heart Surgery?

Nothing in our consitution says “and provide the basic healthcare”. The closest you’re going to get is “promote the general welfare” and even that says “promote” not gauruntee.

Then you’re ignorant of the issues surrounding obesity among the poor. It’s a complex issue, which you’re trying to oversimplify.

I disagree. I think it’s a simple issue that you try and avoid by over-analyzing it.

“Two basic flaws in your argumentation, however, are easy to point out: First, it assumes (incorrectly) that most or all poor people are obese.

I didn’t say “most” or “all”. I said we have enough poor people who are so overfed that they are obese, and apparently this is a big problem because it puts all this pressure on the other wonderful government program, the healthcare system (but it’s not complete socialism!) that is also falling apart.

“Second, it ignores the fact that often times, the food that poor people can most easily afford is fatty junk food. If the choice is between fresh asparagus for $2.99/lb or a McDonald’s Big & Tasty for 99¢, what do you think they’re going to choose?”

Typical elitist liberal garbage-translation- poor people are too stupid to eat asparagus instead of a big mac!-I know!!!…….”

(wait for it)…..”Let’s spend more money on the education system!!”

(shaking head)…

I don’t know what those numbers actually are, but I’d bet dollars to donuts that it’s a lot closer to the latter scenario than to the former.

No, you don’t know what those numbers are. And “dollars to donuts” you don’t know what you’re talking about. The rest of your math gets even more hilarious.

“A single person who made $1 million in 2006, took only the standard deduction, did not itemize, had no income from capital gains, etc. (an absurdly pessimistic scenario, but work with me) paid an effective federal income tax rate of 32.69%. Well under the 35% top bracket. With capital gains/losses, itemized decutions, etc., this hypothetical person probably winds up paying a lot less than that, even. (And once you factor in the regressive payroll taxes, sales taxes, etc., the taxes paid as a percentage of income start to flatten considerably between wealthy and not-so-wealthy.)

What that person paid IN TAXES is more than what 70% of the country EARNS INDIVIDUALLY in the same year. You call this not progressive enough?

Here’s the problem. You can look at tax rates from 1993 to today. From 93 to 2001 the rates were from 15%-39.6%. When the rates were adjusted ACROSS THE BOARD they changed to 10%-35%. Guess what happened? The taxes brought in more money.

Our most recent rounds of tax cuts, however, cut the top bracket from 39.6% to 35%, a reduction of almost 12%

Your math is funny. 39.6 minus 35 is twelve?

Cuts to the lower brackets would still benefit everyone in the higher brackets, and they would be targeted to those people who are most likely to put the additional pocket money directly back into the economy.

That would be great if it were true, except it’s not.

Here’s som data for you to read, but I’m going to quote from this one paragraph.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

The latest release of Internal Revenue Service data comes from calendar year 2004, a year in which the economy remained healthy and continued to grow, as well as a year with higher-than-average price inflation.

The IRS data below include all of the 130 million tax returns filed in 2004 that had a positive AGI, not just the returns from people who earn enough to owe taxes. From other IRS data, we can see that 89 million of the tax returns came from people who paid taxes into the Treasury. That leaves 43 million tax returns filed by people who used exemptions, deductions and tax credits to completely wipe out their federal income tax liability. Not only did they get back every dollar that the federal government withheld from their paychecks during 2004; but some even received more back from the IRS. This is a result of refundable tax credits like the Earned Income Tax Credit, which are not included in the aggregate percentile data here, but are taken into account in a recent Tax Foundation Fiscal Fact entitled “New IRS Data Show All Income Groups Have Seen Tax Liabilities Fall Since 2000.”

“there’s no fixed-size “pie” of grade points. Person B’s GPA can increase without a matching decrease in someone else’s GPA. #2, I’m not aware of any seriously-proposed program, social-welfare or otherwise, that suggests we ought to distribute wealth exactly evenly across the population”

And person A’s wealth can increase without a matching decrease in B’s. However, when you use taxes, there is a corresponding decrease in many person B’s. Also, in your analogy, there is no evenly spread GPA. they are taking from one to give to another. So, again, I don’t get it.

For the record, it’s a dumba analogy but it’s not dumb for the reasons your average lefty thinks it’s dumb.

Uncle:

The problem with the analogy (and with your analysis of it) is that it unfairly characterizes social welfare programs as nothing more than simple wealth redistribution. That’s not what the real world looks like.

Tman:

Dude, you just love the straw man, don’t you? If you insist on attacking positions nobody has taken, it’s going to be hard to take you seriously. For example:

Nothing in our consitution says “and provide the basic healthcare”.

Who said there was anything in the constitution about it? There’s nothing in the constitution about having an air force, either, but that doesn’t mean having one is a bad idea.

poor people are too stupid to eat asparagus instead of a big mac!

WTF? Who said anything about stupidity? It’s a question of economics, not intelligence. How friggin’ dishonest do you have to be to try to make your point?

What that person paid IN TAXES is more than what 70% of the country EARNS INDIVIDUALLY in the same year.

Yeah, and what that person earned individually is more than what about 95% of the country did the same year. What’s your point?

Guess what happened? The taxes brought in more money.

Only in absolute dollars, uncorrected. If you correct for inflation or against GDP, they brought in less. In constant dollars, we’re not expected to get back to 2000’s level of revenue until 2007 or 2008. Another convenient anti-tax lie, dutifully parroted by Tman.

That would be great if it were true, except it’s not.

Actually, yes it is. How does a cut to only the bottom bracket not benefit everyone who pay taxes? It won’t be hand-over-fist savings like a cut to the top bracket, but even the top taxpayers would pay less, as a percentage, in taxes, than they did before the cut. That’s how marginal taxes work.

Other gems: Social Security bankrupt? Nope. And to the extent it’s in trouble, this is largely because your beloved GOP raided the trust fund so that they could give out their hefty tax cuts while increasing spending.

Socialism? Nobody here has suggested that we have government-controlled production or distribution of basic needs. Only that the government (i.e., everyone) helps to pay for them. So by your own definition of socialism, social welfare programs are NOT socialism, nor is something like single-payer health care.

Finally:

That leaves 43 million tax returns filed by people who used exemptions, deductions and tax credits to completely wipe out their federal income tax liability. Not only did they get back every dollar that the federal government withheld from their paychecks during 2004; but some even received more back from the IRS

That’s a lie of omission, because it doesn’t address federal payroll taxes (e.g., FICA). It speaks only of income taxes, which are only a part of the federal tax picture. EITC is a partial refund on FICA taxes paid by those with the lowest incomes. But anti-tax folks don’t like to talk about FICA, because it’s taxation the way they like it — regressive. (Without EITC, someone who grosses $20K per year pays 7.65% of their gross income (not AGI) in FICA taxes, while someone who grosses $200K pays only about 4.2% of gross — less than that, if any of their gross comes from non-payroll sources. And if you include the employer portion in the mix, those disparities double.)

And for what it’s worth, in 2006, the EITC applies only to gross incomes less than $12,120. So we really are talking about the very low end of the tax spectrum here. This is probably why the tax foundation doesn’t give specific numbers, instead choosing to vaguely complain about it.

All I have to respond to that is….. New Orleans rebuilt. American electronic voting. Border Control. Outsourcing of jobs.

For giggles, I just did the math, and somebody who grosses $10K in a year gets an EITC of about $160. Meaning that they still paid $605, or about 6% of their gross income (not AGI), to the federal government. To read the tax foundation’s blurb, one might get the impression that such a person actually received more back than they paid in, almost like we were actively paying that person to do nothing.

I don’t know what you call that, but I call it intentionally misleading.

The Church of Zero Sum Game. Very religious of you tgirsch.

“unfairly characterizes social welfare programs as nothing more than simple wealth redistribution. ”

Unfairly? Come now. that’s precisely what they are. You take from some and give to others.

“That’s not what the real world looks like.”

Yes, it is. Sure, you can dress it up but that’s what it looks like. the issue is whether or not it has redeeming social value and benefits (welfare does; evening out grades in this case does not).

I was hesitant to engage in the conversation, but now I will.

Whoever came up with the model isn’t describing social welfare by any means: I think what he is describing is more like “forced charity.” What the model doesn’t consider is that the system (i.e. person A + person B) is running at a 3.0 regardless of whether or not person A donates one point of his/her GPA to their friend. My question is: instead of focusing on the individual performance, why not focus on the system?

“There’s nothing in the constitution about having an air force,

What do you think “provide for the common defense” means?

It’s a question of economics, not intelligence.

So there aren’t any other vegetables besides asparagus that are as cheap as McDonalds? This is a stupid argument.

Yeah, and what that person earned individually is more than what about 95% of the country did the same year. What’s your point?

Actually, it’s more than that. My point was that your dreams of “soaking the rich” only make everyone “more equal”=less wealthy.

In constant dollars, we’re not expected to get back to 2000’s level of revenue until 2007 or 2008.

But right now we are where we were in 1995-1996 which is amazing considering the recession, the war, Katrina, and the stock market bubble breaking in your magical year of 2000.

You miss my point: Tax receipts have soared by over 35% (with 5.5%, 14.5%, and 11.7% increases in fiscal 2004, 2005, and 2006, respectively). Economic growth has averaged an annualized 3.89% during the past 13 quarters since the 2003 Bush tax cuts were passed. This is a record that for all practical purposes matches the best seven years of the Clinton administration. And this is without factoring in the stock market crash, 9/11, the war, and Katrina.

And you don’t have history on your side in this argument either. Three times in the 1900s (the 20s, 60s, and 80s) taxes were cut across the board. All three cuts stimulated the economy substantially and immediately and resulted in increases in tax dollars to the federal treasury.

How does a cut to only the bottom bracket not benefit everyone who pay taxes?

Because the amount of the tax break is insignificant to the majority of tax payers. If you cut taxes across the board, you raise revenue. History continually supports this as a fact.

Social Security bankrupt? Nope.

The benefits paid to retirees will soon exceed the taxes collected to finance them. Bankrupt means “having insufficient assets to cover one’s debts,” which applies to Social Security in 2042, according to the Social Security Trustees most recent report. What do you propose we do to fix it? My guess, you propose we raise taxes.

And I love how you say the GOP “raided” the surplus to give away tax cuts. IT’S NOT THEIR MONEY TO BEGIN WITH. IT’S OUR MONEY.

A tax cut doesn’t take money away from anything, it just takes less away from the taxpayer. It’s amazing how ingrained socialists will act as if its a god given right to collect income from individuals.

Nobody here has suggested that we have government-controlled production or distribution of basic needs. Only that the government (i.e., everyone) helps to pay for them.

The “government” doesn’t pay for them. WE pay for them, the government operates the insitutions. And I have a newsflash for you: the welfare system controls production or distribution of basic needs to those on welfare. It’s socialism, no matter how you want to dress it.

That’s a lie of omission, because it doesn’t address federal payroll taxes (e.g., FICA). It speaks only of income taxes, which are only a part of the federal tax picture.

I made $36K last year. I got back a check at the end of the year, essentially cutting my taxes in half. I paid about 12% in taxes to government-FICA,Income,Social Security, whatever you want to call it. Those are the facts.

You also ignored several other points in my post, unsuprisingly. Does 39.6 minus 35 still equal twelve in your world? You won’t tell me what “basic healthcare” is, because you realize that there is nothing in the constitution that says the government should provide healthcare. Your arguments about tax cuts have been proven wrong throughout history again and again and despite the rebound from the recent recession, you want to kill the one thing that made it all possible.

You are a socialist. Which is fine, nothing wrong with that per se, just that you have no positive examples of socialism ever doing anything other than limiting the ability of the individual to become independent and successful, in order to “keep everyone equal”.

Tman doesn’t get simple arithmetic. Let me help:

(35 – 39.6)/39.6 = -.116 = -11.6%

i.e., a decrease from 39.6 to 35 is about a 12% decrease from the starting base of 39.6.

You might want to learn the difference between absolute change and percent change if you want to argue economics. Some people know the difference. It can be embarrasing when you run into one of them.

I’ll also repeat a comment I made from above: some folks think that income taxes are the only taxes that matter. When you take ALL taxes into account, our system approaches flat tax status.
Again, try reading DC Johnson.

One last note (also said above): calling it socialism doesn’t end the argument. There have been many socialistic successes, but
someone like Tman will never recognize them no matter what.
Everyone in this country has benefited from the decades of agitation by unionists, socialists, commies, and other pinkos who had some of their ideas co-opted by the “libruls” and put into law. I don’t know anything about Tman’s specifics, but I
know for sure that he’s a beneficiary. That’s why I asked him above about his net worth and how he got it. A careful examination of the details will inevitably reveal that the dead hand of government played a role.

But I don’t think he can handle this.

DCnataro,

You might want to learn the difference between absolute change and percent change if you want to argue economics.

You might want to have tgirsch specify what he’s talking about then. It can be embarrasing when you mouth off like you know everything and you really don’t.

When you take ALL taxes into account, our system approaches flat tax status.

? That makes no sense. When 10% of the population pays over 75% of the taxes, a flat tax you do not have.

There have been many socialistic successes, but
someone like Tman will never recognize them no matter what.

Socialistic successes? I’ll recognize them if you mention them. You mention the labor unions, and I agree that at one point this “socialist” movement helped people to get paid a honest salary. But thanks to these Unions today, the entire US auto industry cannot compete with foreign competitors due to its benefit payouts. That means more people get laid off, and less jobs are available. That’s why most new foreign auto companies don’t have unions. Because they don’t help the worker the way they used to.

That’s why I asked him above about his net worth and how he got it. A careful examination of the details will inevitably reveal that the dead hand of government played a role.

I have a minimal net worth. Less than 10K to be specific. I have made some bad financial decisions, and I’m learning from them. But I won’t depend on your “invisible hand” to increase my net worth. I depend on Adam Smith’s version. His is the one with the proven track record.

#9:

What the hell are you talking about? The analogy is flawed in that it assumes a zero sum game. I point out that this is an invalid assumption, and this makes me a member of the “Church of Zero Sum?” You’ve got serious reading comprehension issues, dude.

SayUncle:
Unfairly? Come now. that’s precisely what they are.

Only if you define “wealth redistribution” in a completely moronic (and useless) fashion. By that reasoning, funding highways is also a form of wealth redistribution, because you’re taking money from the taxpayers and giving it to the people who build and maintain the highways. In fact, by your loose definition, any transfer of funds at all is “wealth redistribution.”

The underlying implication by those who use the term “wealth redistribution” is that money is forcibly taken from the deserving “haves” and given directly to the undeserving “have nots” for the express purpose of equalizing things. That’s clearly what the analogy alleges, but that’s not what social welfare programs are intended to do. No one, and I mean absolutely no one seriously argues that we should evenly distribute all wealth across all citizens. Yet this is precisely what the analogy is getting at.

Tman:
What do you think “provide for the common defense” means?

Nothing other than what it says. A strict textualist/originalist will tell you that since there are explicitly enumerated means of providing for such defense listed in the constitution, any such means not listed are not open to the government. A standing army is also explicitly unconstitutional, although we’ve managed to find loopholes to get around that.

So there aren’t any other vegetables besides asparagus that are as cheap as McDonalds?

The point is that healthy foods are, as a general rule, more expensive than their unhealthy counterparts. That you’re either too dumb or too dishonest to get that isn’t my problem. The USDA estimates the monthly cost to feed a healthy diet to a family of four is around $450-$500, if you shop smart and do all your own cooking. By way of comparison, you could feed the same family of four nothing but McDonald’s Extra Value Meals for around $360, a savings of at least 20% — not insignificant to someone on a tight budget. You could save even more with store-bought junk food. Sorry, dude, but the facts are on my side on this one.

My point was that your dreams of “soaking the rich” only make everyone “more equal”=less wealthy.

Once again, you’re attacking a position I’ve never taken. It seems that this is the only way you know how to argue: make shit up, then attack that. (For what it’s worth, I don’t want to “soak” anybody — I just want everyone to pay their fair share.)

Tax receipts have soared by over 35%

A statistic that is meaningless unless we know what would have happened to tax receipts had taxes not been cut. Further, the statistic is skewed by the fact that you’re not correcting your dollar figures against inflation. Once you correct for that, receipts went down from 2000 to 2001 to 2002 to 2003. They only started to rebound in 2004, and there’s no evidence that tax cuts drove that rebound.

It’s worse when you measure revenues as a percentage of GDP. Measured that way (which is also how the GAO measures the budget and the deficit), revenues are still lower than they’ve been in any year prior to 2003.

But right now we are where we were in 1995-1996 which is amazing considering the recession, the war, Katrina, and the stock market bubble breaking

I’m not sure I’d classify that as “amazing.” Maybe you’re excited about the fact that our tax receipts are now even with where they were at a time when our population was roughly 35 million people (or about 11.6%) smaller than it is today.

If you cut taxes across the board, you raise revenue. History continually supports this as a fact.

Only when you use misleading numbers, as you’ve been doing. To the best of my knowledge, tax cuts (especially non-targeted cuts) have no long-term effect on the economy’s ability to grow.

Bankrupt means “having insufficient assets to cover one’s debts,” which applies to Social Security in 2042, according to the Social Security Trustees most recent report.

So “is bankrupt” now means “is projected to be bankrupt in 35 years?” Wow, that’s a helluva move of the goal posts, there, bub. And, of course, if the trust fund were intact, there’d be enough already-collected-funds to make up the deficit well beyond 2042.

IT’S NOT THEIR MONEY TO BEGIN WITH. IT’S OUR MONEY.

You’re right, it is our money. Money which we gave to them with the understanding that it would be paid back to us later in the form of social security benefits. Instead, it got paid back to the wealthy, in the form of tax cuts. Recall, please, that social security taxes are only collected on the first $90K or so of wage/salary income, and that investment income isn’t taxed at all for this purpose, so that it is a tax paid disproportionately by lower- to middle incomes. That’s redistribution of wealth, courtesy of the GOP.

A tax cut doesn’t take money away from anything, it just takes less away from the taxpayer.

If a tax cut isn’t matched with a spending cut, such that budgets are balanced, then those cuts take money away from whoever winds up inheriting all that debt. (Hint: If you’ve got children, start apologizing now.)

It’s amazing how ingrained socialists will act as if its a god given right to collect income from individuals.

I didn’t realize expecting everyone to help pay for the common costs of society amounted to “socialism.” In fact, by the definition you so conveniently quoted above, socialism has to do with government control of the means of industrial production and distribution. I have proposed no such thing, and am unaware of anyone prominent who seriously has proposed any such thing. I do not think “socialism” means what you think it means.

The “government” doesn’t pay for them. WE pay for them

What part of “everyone” do you not understand?

Does 39.6 minus 35 still equal twelve in your world?

39.6 – 35 = 4.6. That’s the amount of the cut. 4.6 (the amount of the cut) / 39.6 (the pre-cut figure) = 11.616%, the percentage of the cut. I thought you were kidding. I didn’t realize that such basic math was beyond you. Take our hypothetical million-dollar-man above. The current top bracket is 35% of everything over $336,000. Call that amount $664K for simplicity. Under the old top bracket, 39.6%, he pays $262,944 on that income. Under the new “cut” rate, he pays $232,400 in taxes on that income. He has saved $30,544 in taxes as a result of the cut, which is 11.616% less than he was paying before.

You won’t tell me what “basic healthcare” is, because you realize that there is nothing in the constitution that says the government should provide healthcare.

No, I won’t tell you what “basic healthcare” is because it’s beyond the scope of this discussion. What the constitution says or doesn’t say about it is irrelevant as far as I’m concerned. Yours is a silly position to take, unless you seriously believe that all things that are constitutional are good ideas, and all things that are not constitutional are bad ideas. It may be that a proper health care system would require a constitutional amendment to implement. So what? If the constitution were amended to require the provision of health care for all, would you magically stop complaining about it, or suddenly change your stance on whether or not it’s a good idea? I think not.

You are a socialist.

Show me where I’ve ever suggested that the government should control the means of industrial production and distribution. Show me even one place, and I’ll accept that label. Unless you can do that, you’re just further driving home the point that you don’t know what “socialism” actually means.

you have no positive examples of socialism ever doing anything other than limiting the ability of the individual to become independent and successful

Well, assuming you think social security is socialism (you seem to), then that’s a pretty damned successful example. People continue to get wealthy despite its presence — indeed, the wealthy today are wealthier than they have ever been — and poverty among senior citizens is no longer the problem it once was.

…in order to “keep everyone equal”.

Again with the straw men. I’ve never argued that we should “keep everyone equal.” That’s the imaginary bogeyman of liberalism that Rush Limbaugh and his ilk use to scare pants-wetting-types like you into echoing their rhetoric. It’s not anything that any serious liberal ever suggests.

Bottom line: You keep making shit up.

When 10% of the population pays over 75% of the taxes, a flat tax you do not have.

Wow, are you a moron! If that 10% of the population has 75% of the wealth and income, and pays 75% of the taxes, then the tax you have is exactly flat. If you eliminated the progressive tax system and replaced it with a truly flat tax, the wealthiest 10% would still pay the overwhelming majority of the taxes, because they have the overwhelming majority of the income. If you don’t understand simple math like that, there’s truly no hope for you.

Tman:
Here are some socialist successes:

Social Security (now being destroyed)
FDIC
The right to form unions (now being destroyed)
The 40 hour work week (now being destroyed)
Time-and-a-half (now being destroyed)
SEC (now being destroyed)
WIC (destroyed)
Food stamps (now being destroyed)
Superfund (destroyed)
Public education (now being destroyed)
GI Bill of Rights (now being destroyed)

I believe these (and others I could strive to remember)
are socialist successes. You don’t. That’s cool. But I don’t think you’re going to like the last one on my list -

The Defense Department.

After the Second World War something astonishing happened. We maintained a standing army to a much larger extent than ever before. We spent immense resources developing weapons systems and missiles and nukes and other neat stuff. We obtained and staffed hundreds of military bases around the world. We constructed an interstate highway system that was sold to us as a military necessity. Whole industries came into existence. Millions were employed in decent paying jobs with good benefits. Hell, factory workers could actually afford to buy what they produced! The money they spent percolated around the economy.

This was all done by the dead hand of government. It was financed by taxation. Taxes on the rich and the corporations were much higher then than they are now – still the top 1% did rather well for themselves, just like they did after Clinton raised their income taxes a little in 1993. The difference between now and then is that everybody did well back then.

This was socialism, mon ami, like it or not.

None of this was done by Mr. Smith’s hand. One might object to aspects of it (I do), but nobody should deny that lotsa folks did decently well for an extended period of time under this system. This is why I know that you are a beneficiary of it.

Perhaps this way of doing things could be tried again, but without the warlike aspects. Bears considering.

I’ve gotta stop doing this, but I think I will end with a true story about rugged individualism and the invisible hand. (Please bear with me, I think it’s worth it.)

I went to Union College (Schenectady, NY) and graduated in 1973.
There, I joined a fraternity – Alpha Delta Phi. John Wold, Un ‘38, is a frat brother of mine. He majored in geology at Union and his father was on the faculty there. He now lives in Wyoming (as does his son John) and both have been elected to the Congress several times as “very! conservative!” Republicans. I have never met Brother Wold (one of the richest men on the planet), but friends of mine have and have told me about his “rugged individualist” attitude (oh yeah, and don’t ask him for money). I have read some public statements that he has made, and I believe that my friends have reported him to me accurately. Here’s how he got rich:

After graduation, he went west to Idaho and Wyoming and prospected for uranium. He found it and bought up the land – just around the time Otto Hahn was doing his famous experiment.
In the ensuing decades, the dead hand of government paid him billions for his ore. Those billions came from you and me. We can argue about the benefit the country may or may not have gotten from this, but there can be no argument that Brother Wold got rich through the dead hand of government. And it wasn’t invisible, either.

Now, it is true that he did have to go out into the field and put forth some effort to find the U. I’m not saying that he should not have gotten ANY economic benefit from it. But I will not accept any crap about how he got where he is today because of “rugged individualism” or the “invisible hand”. I don’t think there’s a person on the planet who can justifiably make such claims.

And as far as socialism is concerned, attempts to kill it will inevitably cause it to return in order to clean up the mess its murderers will have made.

I hope that you can overcome your financial difficulties and that some hand will be of aid. Bonne Chance.

Dcnataro:
Perhaps this way of doing things could be tried again, but without the warlike aspects.

I’ve got two words for you: Alternative energy. A move away from fossil fuels and toward renewables, coupled with a renewed commitment to energy efficiency, ought to be our generation’s Manhattan Project. I don’t agree with Friedman about a lot, but I agree with him about that.

I love the tone by the way, must be more of this lovely liberal compassion.

A strict textualist/originalist will tell you that since there are explicitly enumerated means of providing for such defense listed in the constitution, any such means not listed are not open to the government. A standing army is also explicitly unconstitutional, although we’ve managed to find loopholes to get around that.

I disagree. The preamble states that “we the people” will provide for the common defense. The Union of these same people created a standing army to provide for the common defense. This seems pretty straightforward to me.

The point is that healthy foods are, as a general rule, more expensive than their unhealthy counterparts. That you’re either too dumb or too dishonest to get that isn’t my problem.

Nice. I’m too dumb? Boy you’re really winning the argument of insults here! Congratulations! As a general rule, no one is FORCING anyone to eat McDonalds. That people decide to eat what tastes good to them regardless of the health consequences is the issue. Your answer is “had they more money, they would be able to eat more asparagus”. And that is complete and total rubbish. Sorry “dude” but the facts are not on your side.

“For what it’s worth, I don’t want to “soak” anybody — I just want everyone to pay their fair share”

And now we hit the crux of our disagreement. You want people to pay “their fair share” but the problem is, there is no “fair share” of wealth. It’s not a pie to be distributed evenly. And why should the people who are lazy benefit from the people who are productive? Do you think that the people at the lower end of the economic ladder are paying their “fair share”? You Do? Who made you king?

Once you correct for that, receipts went down from 2000 to 2001 to 2002 to 2003. They only started to rebound in 2004, and there’s no evidence that tax cuts drove that rebound.

Gee, could you think af any other factors that went on between 2000 and 2004 that might have had some influence? Go ahead I’ll wait.

revenues are still lower than they’ve been in any year prior to 2003.

Really? Can I see some numbers for that?

To the best of my knowledge, tax cuts (especially non-targeted cuts) have no long-term effect on the economy’s ability to grow.

Wow. And you accuse me of being an idiot? Bottom line is the more money that people get to keep, the more they will spend in the economy which, in turn, spurs economic growth and helps out everybody. That means everybody, rich or poor.

It worked in the 20’s, for example, and it works now.

http://www.cato.org/dailys/03-04-03.html

So “is bankrupt” now means “is projected to be bankrupt in 35 years?”

As far as I’m concerned it’s bankrupt now. The money I’m paying in to the system today, I will not be able to collect for 30+ years, which is when the funds will be negative. Why am I investing in a program that won’t have my money when I retire? And how is the “GOP government” taking from the SS trust fund by not taking more of my money? This again, makes no sense.

Recall, please, that social security taxes are only collected on the first $90K or so of wage/salary income, and that investment income isn’t taxed at all for this purpose, so that it is a tax paid disproportionately by lower- to middle incomes. That’s redistribution of wealth, courtesy of the GOP.

But if the lower incomes don’t really pay any of this tax, yet the get to collect it when they retire, isn’t this also redistribution of wealth to the poor? You again aren’t making sense.

If a tax cut isn’t matched with a spending cut, such that budgets are balanced, then those cuts take money away from whoever winds up inheriting all that debt.

The debt is shrinking. All estimates today predict that by the time Bush leaves office we will have a surplus. Unless of course, Democrats raise speding through the roof. Again.

I thought you were kidding. I didn’t realize that such basic math was beyond you.

Thanks for being a condescending asshole. I asked you a question and you respond by insulting my intelligence. You could have just said you were talking about the percentage of the cut, instead of being insluting.

No, I won’t tell you what “basic healthcare” is because it’s beyond the scope of this discussion.

Basic healthcare doesn’t belong in a discussion about socialism?

Show me where I’ve ever suggested that the government should control the means of industrial production and distribution.

By making sure everyone pays their “fair share”.

People continue to get wealthy despite its presence — indeed, the wealthy today are wealthier than they have ever been — and poverty among senior citizens is no longer the problem it once was.

And you think this is because of the miracle of social security? And I’m the idiot?

I’ve never argued that we should “keep everyone equal.”

No, you consistently argue that everyone should “pay their fair share”. That’s the same thing as trying to make sure everyone is equal.

DCnataro,

Thanks for you concern, and I appreciate your story. But all your examples still show me that if not for the “rugged individualist” none of those things would have ever have happened. And socialism destroys the entreprenurial spirit.

If I make it where I want to be financially it will be because of the effort I put forth. I will not expect a helping hand.

Tman: if you make it, as I hope you do, there will have been a helping hand.

Tgirsh: you got it!

This seems pretty straightforward to me.

And it seems pretty thin to me. What’s to prevent those same “the people” from deciding that providing health care for all is part of the “general welfare?” As constitutional arguments go, yours is a loser.

As a general rule, no one is FORCING anyone to eat McDonalds. That people decide to eat what tastes good to them regardless of the health consequences is the issue.

Nice attempt to change the subject. You cited obesity among the poor as evidence that food insecurity isn’t a serious problem in this country. I then demonstrated that for people with very low incomes, it’s substantially cheaper to eat crap than to eat healthy, helping to explain the apparent contradiction. You then change the subject to people choosing unhealthy foods. Yes, most people make bad food choices, but that takes nothing away from the fact that there are some people who couldn’t afford to eat healthy even if they wanted to. But rather than concede that point, you chose to change the subject. Typical.

the problem is, there is no “fair share” of wealth.

Perhaps not, but I doubt you’d disagree that there is a fair share of expenses. We might not agree what that share is, but I’d be surprised if you’d disagree that there is at least some fair share of this in principle.

And why should the people who are lazy benefit from the people who are productive?

And if that’s what social welfare was really about — punishing the productive to reward the lazy — I’d be right alongside you in opposing it. But just exactly what percentage of the underprivileged do you think are that way because they are lazy or because they made bad decisions, as compared to those who are that way for other reasons, such as because of externalities beyond their control (e.g., born into poverty, factory left town, etc.)? Should we neglect all of these people because some of them are “lazy” or are somehow “gaming the system?” And what if some form of help for these underprivileged people helps to nudge some of them from the “unproductive” to the “productive” category? Those people themselves become taxpayers, and therefore help to support the system that helped them.

This points out another flaw in the analogy: it presumes that everyone who works hard gets the proverbial 4.0, while everyone who has the proverbial 2.0 has it strictly because of their own personal failings. Real life is considerably more complicated than that.

Gee, could you think af any other factors that went on between 2000 and 2004 that might have had some influence?

A convenient excuse to hide behind, but there’s simply no evidence that the economy would have failed to rebound, or rebounded more slowly, had it not been for the tax cuts. None.

Really? Can I see some numbers for that?

I already showed them to you, but here they are again, from the government office of management and budget. You’re looking at the “receipts” column under “As Percentage of GDP” — the one that goes down from 20.9 in 2000 to 16.3 in 2004. They started to rebound in 2005, but aren’t projected to return to even 2002’s level (after the “big thing between 2000 and 2004″ you mention) in the foreseeable future.

It worked in the 20’s, for example, and it works now.

Sorry, but the CATO institute isn’t exactly the most reliable source of tax analysis. They’re a lobbying arm, with a specific agenda they’re trying to advance. In any case, the effect of tax cuts they’re talking about only seems to work when you’re cutting from extremely high or punitive (>75%) marginal rates.

And how is the “GOP government” taking from the SS trust fund by not taking more of my money? This again, makes no sense.

Only because of your lack of comprehension. The SS trust fund was taken exclusively from wage earners. The money that was taken to build it up is still being taken. Meanwhile, in order to make the budget while still giving a big tax break to the wealthiest Americans, the government “borrowed” against the trust fund. The money YOU paid into Soc. Security was taken to pay for things other than social security, all so that the wealthy could have a big tax break. In effect, that money was taken from you and given to the wealthy.

But if the lower incomes don’t really pay any of this tax, yet the get to collect it when they retire, isn’t this also redistribution of wealth to the poor? You again aren’t making sense.

It’s not that I’m not making sense, it’s that you’re not understanding anything I’ve said. Where did I say that “lower incomes don’t really pay any of this tax?” What I said was quite the opposite: Lower incomes pay a disproportionately large share of the tax.

The debt is shrinking. All estimates today predict that by the time Bush leaves office we will have a surplus. Unless of course, Democrats raise speding through the roof. Again.

That’s a crapload of ignorance for just one paragraph. Let’s take it point-by-point, shall we? First, the debt is not shrinking, it’s growing. It was about $5.7 trillion when Bush took office in 2000, and is now about $8.5 trillion, an increase of roughly 49% in just six years. I can only assume you mean that the deficit is shrinking, which is a different matter. That just means we’re going farther into debt at a slower rate than we were a couple of years ago, but we’re still going farther into debt.

Also, the deficit is only going down as a percentage of GDP. But a funny thing happens when you correct thing against the GDP (also shown above by tax revenues): Supply-side theory goes to hell. See that graph, and notice what happened to the debt following tax cuts (Reagan/Bush 43) and tax increases (Clinton). Tax cuts resulted in the national debt growing as a percentage of GDP. So much for the supply-side magic.

Finally, you complain (apparently with a straight face) about the “Democrats” increasing spending, when the GOP-controlled Congress worked with the Bush administration to set spending records virtually every year they’ve been in power. The budget for FY2001, Clinton’s last, was $1.86 trillion. The FY2006 budget was $2.66 trillion, about a 42.5% increase. So much for the GOP being the party of fiscal restraint. They controlled the presidency and the house for that entire span, and the senate for most of it.

Thanks for being a condescending asshole. I asked you a question and you respond by insulting my intelligence.

Kettle, meet pot. When you lead off with “Your math is funny. 39.6 minus 35 is twelve?” and follow up with “Does 39.6 minus 35 still equal twelve in your world?” you should hardly be surprised when the response is less than civil. Unless, of course, you see nothing even the slightest bit condescending about your two quotes, in which case you must be operating from a different definition of “condescending” than I am…

You could have just said you were talking about the percentage of the cut

I did, back when I made the original statement. “A reduction of nearly 12%” is pretty self-explanatory, and you seem to be the only one here who didn’t get that. (And, if it was ambiguous, you could always do the math yourself and check. The subtraction didn’t seem to give you any trouble…)

Basic healthcare doesn’t belong in a discussion about socialism?

Not unless health care is considered “industrial production,” no. And in any case, this isn’t supposed to be a discussion about socialism. It’s suppose to be a discussion of an overly simplistic and irrelevant analogy.

By making sure everyone pays their “fair share”.

Paying taxes != Control of industrial production. I don’t know why this is such a difficult concept for you to grasp.

And you think this is because of the miracle of social security?

In large part, yes. If you have unbiased evidence to the contrary, I’d love to see it.

No, you consistently argue that everyone should “pay their fair share”. That’s the same thing as trying to make sure everyone is equal.

On what planet? I mean, seriously, that statement doesn’t make any sense. You really and honestly believe that “pay your fair share” and “forcibly equalize everyone” are even close to the same thing? If Bill Gates pays 1,000 times as much tax as I do, but has 100,000 times as much wealth as I do, we are by no means “made equal” by this exchange.

And socialism destroys the entreprenurial spirit.

Which is why pure socialism cannot work, and why I argue way the hell up there that the ideal system has capitalism and socialism in tension against one another. Pure capitalism destroys competition, ultimately resulting in an oligarchic plutocracy. Pure socialism destroys the entrepreneurial spirit and ultimately results in corruption and bankruptcy. Mix the two properly, however, and you have an economy that can sustain itself.

What’s to prevent those same “the people” from deciding that providing health care for all is part of the “general welfare?”

Because it says “provide the common defense” and “promote the general welfare“. Notice the difference?

Nice attempt to change the subject.

No I didn’t. All your ridiculous justification for the obesity problems for poor people doesn’t change the fact that the problem sure as hell isn’t that they don’t have enough food to eat. You want to add some elaborate excuse that if they just had a little more to spend on food they would be able to eat healthier. I’m saying regardless, they aren’t starving.

Perhaps not, but I doubt you’d disagree that there is a fair share of expenses.

I do agree with that. You could have saved a few thousand words by saying that to begin with.

A convenient excuse to hide behind, but there’s simply no evidence that the economy would have failed to rebound, or rebounded more slowly, had it not been for the tax cuts. None.

Well besides the links I gave that shows that across the board cuts have been responsible for revenue growth after recessions throughout history.

They started to rebound in 2005, but aren’t projected to return to even 2002’s level (after the “big thing between 2000 and 2004″ you mention) in the foreseeable future.

Really? Bernanke says “Federal government outlays in fiscal 2006 were 20.3 percent of nominal gross domestic product (GDP), receipts were 18.4 percent of GDP”

http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/testimony/2007/20070118/default.htm

You think we can’t make up two points? I will agree to disagree.

In any case, the effect of tax cuts they’re talking about only seems to work when you’re cutting from extremely high or punitive (>75%) marginal rates.

Which is what happens when you have across the board tax cuts, the extremely high rates have the most signifigance.

The SS trust fund was taken exclusively from wage earners.

SS in general is taken “exclusively from wage earners”, what’s your point?

Meanwhile, in order to make the budget while still giving a big tax break to the wealthiest Americans, the government “borrowed” against the trust fund.

“Make the budget”? What are you talking about? The “trust fund” as you call it is empty and has always been so. It’s an IOU. There is no money under the mattress so to speak. There never was. All it was is a projection. And that projection can’t be “raided to fund the tax cuts to wealthiest americans”.

Lower incomes pay a disproportionately large share of the tax.

Ahh, we’re back to everything “being fair” again.

It was about $5.7 trillion when Bush took office in 2000, and is now about $8.5 trillion, an increase of roughly 49% in just six years.

I expect them to take on debt during a recession. Again, you ignore the major catastrophes that have shocked the economy as if nothing happened. And as far as the debt is concerned, the people that we owe these debts to cannot simply cash them in. All a dollar is worth is a picture of a famous American Dead guy. We can always make more of them. If China goes to the federal reserve to “cash in” their portion of the debt, all they would get is more portraits of famous american dead guys.

Tax cuts resulted in the national debt growing as a percentage of GDP. So much for the supply-side magic.

What you conveniently ignore is that the debt helps to finance the recovery while the tax cuts help to stimulate more spending. Tax increases would do neither.

I never said the GOP was a party of spending restraint, but jesus man, you think that the democrats are?

Unless, of course, you see nothing even the slightest bit condescending about your two quotes, in which case you must be operating from a different definition of “condescending” than I am…

When you said the original numbers you didn’t say it was a percentage, you simply stated 39.6%-35% = 12%. Apologies for the confusion, I just trying to get you to clarify.

And in any case, this isn’t supposed to be a discussion about socialism. It’s suppose to be a discussion of an overly simplistic and irrelevant analogy.

-that was based on an analogy of socialism. What’d I miss?

Paying taxes != Control of industrial production.

No, confiscating income=control of resources. Socialism means property and the distribution of wealth are subject to social control, ie taxes, not just “industrial production”. Talk about straw men.

In large part, yes. If you have unbiased evidence to the contrary, I’d love to see it.

I just spent the last two days showing you that the tax cuts stimulated the economic growth out of the recession.

If Bill Gates pays 1,000 times as much tax as I do, but has 100,000 times as much wealth as I do, we are by no means “made equal” by this exchange.

Well, when is he paying his “fair share” by your estimation?

the ideal system has capitalism and socialism in tension against one another.

I believe that socialism is what is preventing us from truly developing at full speed.

I said it up top- show me a social issue that needs to be addressed and I’ll show you a government program that has made it worse.

funding highways is also a form of wealth redistribution, because you’re taking money from the taxpayers and giving it to the people who build and maintain the highways

horse shit. in that case, the state is making a product that most can use or buying a product. when you give my money to a poor guy, only he directly benefits.

“Make the budget”? What are you talking about? The “trust fund” as you call it is empty and has always been so. It’s an IOU. There is no money under the mattress so to speak. There never was. All it was is a projection. And that projection can’t be “raided to fund the tax cuts to wealthiest americans”.

LOL

OK, have access to a keyboard now. Concerning SS, whenever there is an annual surplus, which has been the case since the 80’s, the Trust (and yes, there is a formal Trust) invests the money in the only vehicle it can – special government bonds (to invest in equities or corporate bonds would mean government ownership of private industry, and that is frowned on in the US these days). Of course the only reason the government sells bonds of any kind is to finance debt, so if there was no government debt then I suppose the SS surplus would just sit in a very large box collecting dust.

It is true that due to unified budgeting, the SS surplus essentially masks the real magnitude of the deficit (making it read smaller than it really is) but eventually (when the employment/retirement demographics turn against SS and the SS annual surplus becomes an annual deficit) the chickens will come home to roost. There will be no more SS excess revenue to prop up the fiscal nightmare (by that I mean the annual deficit) we now have, and the government will be legally bound to start paying back the $$ borrowed from SS to cover the SS deficit (until the bonds are all repaid – then SS defaults). Basically a double-barreled shot to the federal budget – no more excess to artificially shrink the deficit, plus the obligation to pay back monies borrowed in the past. Unless we have significant fiscal reform in place before this occurs, the federal gov’t is going to have an insurmountable problem on its hands. IMO.

Uncle:

“Directly” is the operative word there. Chances are, at least some social welfare programs do benefit you indirectly. And it’s also entirely possible that the highway construction doesn’t directly benefit you, either — most such projects, unless they happen to be roads you actually drive with any regularity, benefit you only indirectly. So the distinction is not as crisp as you might think.

Tman:
Because it says “provide the common defense” and “promote the general welfare“.

But in context, both of those only refer to the ability of the government to raise funds for those purposes, so I don’t think any constitutional argument that says “the government can do X” because of that clause, unless “X” is levee taxes. The clauses do not invalidate other constitutional restrictions on the powers of government.

All your ridiculous justification for the obesity problems for poor people doesn’t change the fact that the problem sure as hell isn’t that they don’t have enough food to eat.

That may be your point, but it’s one that only stands if all (or even most) poor people are obese. They are not. That obesity is a problem among some poor people does not mean that starvation is a non-issue. I don’t see why that’s so difficult for you to grasp. Your argument is rather like saying because drug use is high among poor people, there are no drug-free poor people.

We also seem to have a problem of semantics here. I contend that only being able to afford bad-for-you food, while not as bad as outright starvation, still qualifies as a food security issue. You seem to disagree. But in any case, obesity is wholly irrelevant to the existence or nonexistence of starvation. This seems to be a common mistake for you: you tend to overgeneralize. This is but one example.

You could have saved a few thousand words by saying that to begin with.

What in the world did you think I was suggesting? If not that people pay their fair share of common expenses, then their fair share of what?

Well besides the links I gave that shows that across the board cuts have been responsible for revenue growth after recessions throughout history.

Which I have already rebutted by showing that when this supposed revenue growth is corrected against inflation or against the GDP, it disappears. In other words, the “revenue growth” is a product of spin rather than of any real, meaningful benefit. Once properly adjusted, revenues go down, which directly contradicts to the point those links are trying to make.

Really?

According to the table I was using, yes, really. But if Bernanke’s figures are accurate, then we’re closing the gap more quickly. That’s good news. But the point is, receipts are still below their 2000 levels (or even 2001 levels) when measured as a percentage of GOP.

Which is what happens when you have across the board tax cuts, the extremely high rates have the most signifigance.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. The only time cuts to high-end marginal tax rates have been shown to increase tax revenue in meaningful (adjusted) terms is when those high-end marginal rates were extremely high. A cut from an 80% marginal rate to a 70% marginal rate seems to have that effect. A cut from a 40% rate to a 35% rate does not. In other words, across-the-board tax cuts don’t have the effect you’re talking about when the starting rates (pre-cut) are already relatively low.

SS in general is taken “exclusively from wage earners”, what’s your point?

My point is that SS tax was taken exclusively from wage earners and given mainly to very-high-income individuals (for whom salary and wages generally make up only a very small portion of total income), in the form of tax cuts. Think of it as the reverse Robin Hood effect. You’re taking from the poor and giving to the rich, with the social security system as your laundering mechanism. Now if we were able to afford tax cuts without borrowing against the social security trust, then I wouldn’t be able to make that claim, and you’d have a point.

The “trust fund” as you call it is empty and has always been so. It’s an IOU.

This is badly-misinformed spin. Ted did a pretty good job of explaining how it actually works, so I’ll leave that part to him. Suffice it to say that the reason “it’s an IOU” is not because the money was never there, but because the government spent the money on things other than what it was intended for. Both parties have been guilty of this (hence all the hubbub about Gore’s proposed “social security lock box” a while back), although of late the GOP has been far more guilty.

I expect them to take on debt during a recession.

Do you even know what a recession is? It’s a decline in GDP for two consecutive quarters or longer. According to the BEA’s figures, we haven’t been in an economic recession at any time during the Bush 43 presidency. According to another source, there was one small recession that ended in November of 2001, two months after the “catastrophe.”

And in any case, if those catastrophes are to blame for the taking on of debt, what was Reagan’s excuse?

Apart from that, and apart from the fact that your knowledge of how debts and deficits work seems lacking, I’m sick and tired of conservatives hiding behind 9/11 as an excuse for why their glorious economic theories don’t work as advertised. Nobody denies that events like 9/11 and Katrina have serious impacts on the economy. Some of us just doubt that the economy would somehow have failed to rebound if not for tax cuts. (To wit: There were no additional tax cuts passed post-Katrina, and yet the national economy seems to have rebounded just fine without their benefit.)

What you conveniently ignore is that the debt helps to finance the recovery while the tax cuts help to stimulate more spending. Tax increases would do neither.

And yet the economy recovered from the Bush 41 recession just fine, while reducing the national debt (as a percentage of GDP), after Clinton raised taxes in 1993. This directly contradicts your argument.

I never said the GOP was a party of spending restraint, but jesus man, you think that the democrats are?

I have long characterized the Democrats as the “tax-and-spend” party, and the Republicans as the “borrow-and-spend” party. As generalizations go, I think those are reasonably accurate. Given a choice between those two, I think the former is vastly more fiscally responsible.

When you said the original numbers you didn’t say it was a percentage

In most circles, that’s what “%” means.

that was based on an analogy of socialism. What’d I miss?

You missed the part where any actual liberal policies qualify as socialism. According to the definition you provided, they do not. So, in effect, the whole analogy exists to attack a straw man. As I’ve stated repeatedly, nobody is seriously suggesting that we forcibly redistribute wealth to the point where everyone has an equal share of wealth. In fact, I don’t know of anyone prominent suggesting anything within miles of that.

No, confiscating income=control of resources. Socialism means property and the distribution of wealth are subject to social control

Hey, man, I’m just working from the definition you provided here:

Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government

Nothing in that definition whatsoever about property or wealth. Only about the means of producing and distributing goods. Maybe you’re thinking of communism (the elimination of private property), although nobody’s suggesting that, either.

I just spent the last two days showing you that the tax cuts stimulated the economic growth out of the recession.

No, you didn’t. You spent the last two days regurgitating discredited spin. I’ve repeatedly explained why the numbers you used are flawed.

Well, when is he paying his “fair share” by your estimation?

When his share of the total tax burden is roughly equivalent to his share of the total wealth, less modest living expenses. I’d apply that same standard to everyone, from the richest to the poorest.

show me a social issue that needs to be addressed and I’ll show you a government program that has made it worse.

Start with education. Compare the education level of the median pre-public-education citizen with today’s median citizen. It’s no contest. (Sure, before public education, if you were fortunate enough to be able to pay for an expensive private education, you did well, but that remains the case even today, even in the presence of public education.)

[Y]ou tend to overgeneralize. This is but one example.

Not that tgirsch’s is wrong here, but looking at this juxtaposition of words on their own struck me as quite funny.

tgirsch,

But in context, both of those only refer to the ability of the government to raise funds for those purposes,

No they don’t. One says “provide”, the other says “promote”. Only one refers to the idea of “raising funds” ie “provide”. The other says to “promote” as in “to motivate”.

but it’s one that only stands if all (or even most) poor people are obese.

No it doesn’t. If half of our poor people are obese, than we don’t have a food shortage issue. This isn’t as complicated as you’re making it. Look at any third world nation. They don’t have obesity problems AT ALL. Because they have real and serious FOOD SECURITY ISSUES. We have freaking supermarkets throwing out “bad” food daily next to fast food restaurants that have to dump pounds of food uneaten per day. Don’t tell me we have a food security issue.

If not that people pay their fair share of common expenses, then their fair share of what?

But that’s not what you’re advocating. If everyone just paid their “fair share” the rich would get a much bigger break than they do now. I use the police as much as the guy down the street who makes a million dollars a year. According to you, we should pay the same for police services.

But you really don’t believe this, do you brave Sir Robin.

In other words, the “revenue growth” is a product of spin rather than of any real, meaningful benefit.

The tax cut I received after the latest round of cuts from 43 was a real meaningful benefit. In dollars. No Spin necessary. It worked. And you sure as hell didn’t debunk anything. YOU’RE the one trying to spin it.

Once properly adjusted, revenues go down, which directly contradicts to the point those links are trying to make.

No it doesn’t. “Once properly adjusted” year to year it’s the same thing, throughout history.

But the point is, receipts are still below their 2000 levels (or even 2001 levels) when measured as a percentage of GOP.

But above pretty much most of the 90’s. Tax receipts in FY2005 grew more than 14 percent–the largest such year-over-year increase in nearly 25 years. You can’t spin that away.

My point is that SS tax was taken exclusively from wage earners and given mainly to very-high-income individuals (for whom salary and wages generally make up only a very small portion of total income), in the form of tax cuts.

These “very-high-income individuals” were also wage earners, and you didn’t take one and give to the other. Both were taken. When you reduce the taxes on both, one pays less. It’s amazing to finally witness the insanity in your quest to punish the wealthy, brave sir robin.

Apart from that, and apart from the fact that your knowledge of how debts and deficits work seems lacking, I’m sick and tired of conservatives hiding behind 9/11 as an excuse for why their glorious economic theories don’t work as advertised.

No excuse needs to be made. The economy was devastated by a combination of the stock market collapse, investor insecurity after Enron, 9/11, and the subsequent war. The tax cuts kept money flowing throghout the economy which allowed confidence to rebound. Why does anyone need to make an excuse for policies that are so clearly successfuly?

And yet the economy recovered from the Bush 41 recession just fine, while reducing the national debt (as a percentage of GDP), after Clinton raised taxes in 1993. This directly contradicts your argument.

No it doesn’t. And jesus that’s a horrible example. Bush 41 raised taxes and almost destroyed the economy. Clinton did the same thing again and also almost sunk us back in to recession.

According to the definition you provided, they do not.

Yes they do. Liberal policies, such as universal health=socialism. Again, not rocket science.

As I’ve stated repeatedly, nobody is seriously suggesting that we forcibly redistribute wealth to the point where everyone has an equal share of wealth.

No, you just want those to be taxed based on their share of the wealth. Ignring the fact that again, their is no “fair share” of wealth.

When his share of the total tax burden is roughly equivalent to his share of the total wealth, less modest living expenses. I’d apply that same standard to everyone, from the richest to the poorest.

And brave sir robin finally admits it.

Brave sir robin, let’s review this important fact again.

THERE IS NO “SHARE OF THE TOTAL WEALTH”.

And you use the education system as an example of the government done good to a social issue?

It is to laugh.

Tman:
No they don’t. One says “provide”, the other says “promote”. Only one refers to the idea of “raising funds” ie “provide”.

I knew you were wrong on this one, but I went too long without looking it up. Here’s what the constitution actually says:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States

Lookie there! It says provide for common defense and general welfare. No “promote” anywhere. But again, in context, debts, defense, and welfare are all justifications for the governments ability to collect taxes, rather than explicitly granted powers.

I’ll be expecting that mea culpa any moment now.

If half of our poor people are obese, than we don’t have a food shortage issue.

Is that what you’re going on about? Do you really think that “food insecurity” and “a shortage of food” are the same thing? That would explain a great deal. Go forth and educate yourself. Once you know what you’re talking about, come back and we’ll discuss this like adults.

If everyone just paid their “fair share” the rich would get a much bigger break than they do now.

No, actually they wouldn’t. To the extent that our stable system of government enables them to obtain and retain their wealth, they have a lot more skin in the game than John Q. Poorguy. They benefit proportionally more from things like transportation infrastructure, national defense (unless you think lives are the only thing we’re defending, and wealth isn’t something we’re defending), and even public education (without a pool of educated workers to draw from, their businesses could not function). That you don’t immediately recognize the ways in which the wealthy benefit disproportionately doesn’t mean that those ways aren’t there.

The tax cut I received after the latest round of cuts from 43 was a real meaningful benefit.

What are you talking about, “from 43?” Anyway, I don’t deny that it’s nice to have a few extra bucks in the take-home, but I have to ask, “At what cost?” It’d be nice to not have to pay any taxes at all, but surely you’re not advocating that. The bottom line is that any tax cut that we as a nation cannot afford is irresponsible, and on the macro scale is not a benefit. (Unless, of course, you think that saddling your children with a few extra trillion of debt is worth a few extra bucks in your pocket each week…)

“Once properly adjusted” year to year it’s the same thing, throughout history.

Dude, I’ve provided numbers from about three different sources to back up my argument. You’ve done nothing to rebut these, other than to say “Nuh uh!” a the top of your lungs. Have you not even looked at any of the charts or tables I’ve provided? If they’re wrong, you need to explain why they’re wrong. And if they’re not wrong, than my point is proven.

Hell, you don’t even have to believe my charts. You could go out and check for yourself. Find a year-by-year history of the GDP, a year-by-year history of tax revenues, and a year-by-year history of the national debt. Express debt and revenue as percentages of the GDP. See what it looks like.

Tax receipts in FY2005 grew more than 14 percent–the largest such year-over-year increase in nearly 25 years. You can’t spin that away.

How are you correcting those tax receipts? Or are you just using raw dollars again? And, of course, you’re assuming (without evidence) that the increases were because of the tax cuts. How do you know that they wouldn’t have increased by even more if the tax rates were higher?

Looking at the handy-dandy chart, it’s true that receipts increased by 14.5% in FY2005, when measured in raw dollars. In constant (inflation-adjusted) dollars, however, that increase is only 10.8%, and as a percentage of GDP, the increase is less than 7.4%.

Finally, it’s dishonest to talk about the increase in receipts without also talking about the decrease that preceded it. Adjusted against GDP, tax receipts fell 22% from 2000 to 2004 (if you prefer inflation-adjusted dollars, the drop was 17% from 2000 to 2003). Even as the economy rebounded from 9/11, tax receipts continued to fall. The “record increases” you tout would simply not have happened had they not been preceded by precipitous drops.

Your refusal to use properly-adjusted numbers, coupled with your refusal to even entertain the possibility that the economy could have rebounded without the benefit of tax cuts, tells us everything we need to know about who’s spinning. (To be fair, I don’t believe you’re actively spinning. Rather, I think you’ve bought into somebody else’s spin, and are simply repeating it here.)

These “very-high-income individuals” were also wage earners

Yes, but you’re still missing the point. The very-high-income individuals paid a relatively small share of the social security tax, but got an exponentially larger share of benefit from the cuts.

It’s amazing to finally witness the insanity in your quest to punish the wealthy, brave sir robin.

Nobody wants to “punish the wealthy,” you silly sod. If bogeymen and unfounded character attacks are the best you can come up with, you’re wasting everyone’s time.

The tax cuts kept money flowing throghout the economy which allowed confidence to rebound. Why does anyone need to make an excuse for policies that are so clearly successfuly?

Because they are not “so clearly successful,” as I’ve been demonstrating throughout this thread. Repeating it doesn’t make it true, you know. You also overestimate the impact of those events. The economy did indeed take a big hit because of them, but it was by no means “devastated.” If our economy is so fragile that it can be devastated by a relatively small (in the grand scheme of things) terror attack and a couple of large-scale cases of corporate fraud, I’d hate to see what another WWII would do to it.

Bush 41 raised taxes and almost destroyed the economy. Clinton did the same thing again and also almost sunk us back in to recession.

Huh? The numbers simply don’t back up that assertion at all (which I assume is why you don’t provide any evidence whatsoever to support that claim). In any case, I didn’t realize that “unprecedented growth and prosperity” meant “almost back into recession.”

Yes they do [meet Tman's definition of socialism].

No, they really don’t. I’m beginning to question your reading comprehension. Your definition explicitly talks about government control of the production and distribution of goods. None of the policies we’re talking about have anything to do with the production or distribution of goods. Maybe you’re working from a different definition of socialism, but the one you provided earlier does not apply! Not rocket science, indeed.

No, you just want those to be taxed based on their share of the wealth. Ignring the fact that again, their is no “fair share” of wealth.

I never said there was a fair share of wealth, now did I? I suggested taxing people based on the share of wealth they have, not the share of wealth they “deserve” or “ought to have.”

THERE IS NO “SHARE OF THE TOTAL WEALTH”.

Huh? WTF are you talking about? Are you honestly suggesting that it’s impossible to measure the collective net worth of all American citizens? Or that it’s impossible to compare the net worth of any given American against that collective net worth?

Let’s make it real simple: a two-person example. Say you have income and assets totaling $25,000. Now suppose Ted (for sake of argument) has income and assets totaling $75,000. In this example, you and Ted have a combined worth of $100,000. You control 25% of it, and Ted controls 75% of it. In this hyper-simplified example, you should be responsible for 25% of the total tax burden, and Ted should be responsible for 75%. Is that really such a difficult concept for you to grasp? Does that really strike you as being horrifically unfair, or as an attempt by me to “punish” Ted for having three times as much money as you? If so, we’re not going to agree on much of anything.

(And let’s not fail to mention that despite your repeated use of “Brave Sir Robin,” somehow I’m the “condescending asshole”…)

Tgirsch,

I was having fun with the Brave Sir Robin when you made the “reverse robin hood” argument. Sorry it got to you, but I thought it was funny.

First of all, I brought up the preamble to the constitution, which states “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

The reason I brought that up was to show that the intent of the founders was to create a government that was specifically meant to protect the citizens, period.

Do you really think that “food insecurity” and “a shortage of food” are the same thing?

I said that I don’t think that we have food shortages in this country. And I understand that despite our best efforts there are still people who go hungry in this country everyday. The site you gave listed numbers as so-“Around 4 percent of people reported going hungry at least once a year, while on any given day the figure is estimated to be between 0.5 percent and 0.8 percent.”

I’d say that our system does a pretty good job if at the end of the day 99.6% of the population is fed.

“That you don’t immediately recognize the ways in which the wealthy benefit disproportionately doesn’t mean that those ways aren’t there.”

You’re saying that rich people get more services for their tax dollars than the rest of us? I’d like a better explanation besides “they have more to lose”. The rich guy still has to get in line with the rest of us at the DMV.

As far as the revenue from tax receipts, I’ll show you multiple links suggesting you are simply regurgitating info that YOU were spoon fed-

This chart shows the interaction between tax revenues and the GDP growth rate from year to year.

http://stubbornfacts.us/files/tax_revenues_gdpgrowth_1992-2005.gif

this chart showing the tax receipts compared to the actual GDP level (also in constant 2000 dollars).

http://stubbornfacts.us/files/tax_revenues_gdp_1992-2005.gif

So no, you don’t get it. And I find it interesting that you seem to be obssessed with 2000 as the bellweather for what everything should be adjusted to. Why don’t you use 1996? Why not 1976? Why don’t you show me an example of when we increased taxes after a recession and the economy got better?

Because they are not “so clearly successful,” as I’ve been demonstrating throughout this thread.

So the economy, despite a record dow, job growth, and record tax receipts, does not show the success of the tax cuts?

The very-high-income individuals paid a relatively small share of the social security tax, but got an exponentially larger share of benefit from the cuts.

Show me the numbers. If I make 1 million dollars, and I pay 10% to SS, I paid $100,000 to SS. If I make $100,000 and pay the same 10%, I paid $10,000. The richer you are, the more you pay towards SS. Your last sentence makes no sense.

The numbers simply don’t back up that assertion at all (which I assume is why you don’t provide any evidence whatsoever to support that claim).

I didn’t have to. Your “handy dandy chart” proves it for me.

None of the policies we’re talking about have anything to do with the production or distribution of goods.

Foodstamps?

I never said there was a fair share of wealth, now did I?

You did say “When his share of the total tax burden is roughly equivalent to his share of the total wealth”, which I am to assume means his “fair share of the total wealth”.

Are you honestly suggesting that it’s impossible to measure the collective net worth of all American citizens? Or that it’s impossible to compare the net worth of any given American against that collective net worth?

I’m saying that there is no “collective net worth”. The economy is expandable and, in any practical sense, limitless.

And you’re example cuts right back to the heart of this debate (thankfully). Ted made $75,000 BY HIMSELF. I did not contribute to Teds net worth, and we don’t all pull our money from the same pie. There is NO COLLECTIVE NET WORTH. He may have assets outside the US, I may have assets that can’t be measured in dollars. Either way, we aren’t all pulling from the same source, thus you cannot say the burden needs to be evenly distributed BY THIS EXAMPLE.

Tman:

I didn’t realize that you were quoting from the preamble to the constitution. But I don’t think any serious constitutional scholar believes that the preamble either confers or denies any particular powers to the federal government. Those powers are enumerated in the articles, not in the preamble. Arguing from the preamble is not a position worth taking seriously.

As to the graphs you cite, just exactly what do you think they show? The first graph is misleading, because it superimposes two different metrics measured against two different scales on the same graph. That doesn’t make any sense. But even setting that aside for a moment, all it seems to show is that there’s no strong relationship in either direction between tax revenues and GDP growth, and the weak relationship that does exist seems to indicate that tax receipts and the GDP go up and down roughly together. I fail to see how this can be construed as evidence in favor of your point.

On the second graph you link (a better graph, since at least the units agree), the GDP again seems to be unrelated to tax revenues. In fact, the GDP is almost a perfect straight line from 1994 to 2005, indicating that changes in tax policy have negligible impact.

But here’s what’s interesting. Look what your source says about reporting things in current, unadjusted dollars:

Comparing revenues and expenditures over several years makes no sense in current, unadjusted dollars, as inflation alone would make it look like revenues had increased even if the buying power of those revenues stayed exactly the same.

Pretty much every link you provide above, and every “record growth” number you cite, is listed in terms of unadjusted dollars. So apparently, this “stubbornfacts” guy (“Pat”) and I are in agreement that the numbers you’ve been using for most of this debate are crap. And what does he say about the second graph you cited?

I’ve added a trend line [to Tman's second graph] to make it easier to see the post-9/11 slowdown, which is much more clearly demonstrated in [Tman's first graph]. What this emphasizes, I think, is that all of these changes are relatively minor blips in long-term trends.

[Italics mine]
So according to your source, 9/11 didn’t “devastate” the economy, and the tax cuts didn’t dramatically increase revenues. Both were “relatively minor blips” in long-term trends that didn’t seem to be affected very much by either.

And I find it interesting that you seem to be obssessed with 2000 as the bellweather for what everything should be adjusted to. Why don’t you use 1996? Why not 1976?

Because 2000 is what the OMB uses, and it’s what your source uses. But it doesn’t matter. You could adjust against 1996 or even 1976, as long as you’re normalizing everything against a fixed value. For other comparisons, it makes sense to talk about 2000 because it was the peak year. If we topped out in 1998 or 2002, that would be the year we’d be comparing against.

Why don’t you show me an example of when we increased taxes after a recession and the economy got better?

I already did. 1993. This isn’t to say that the economy got better because of the 1993 tax increase. There’s not enough evidence to show a causal relationship. But from 1993 (the year of the Clinton tax hike) to 2000, the economy grew at a nearly unprecedented rate. Here’s what the GDP did from 1976 to 2005. There’s simply no correlation between changes in tax policy and what happens to the economy. There is a correlation between tax cuts/increases and tax revenue. In corrected dollars, revenues generally go down after a cut, and up after an increase.

So the economy, despite a record dow, job growth, and record tax receipts, does not show the success of the tax cuts?

Not unless you’re willing to also say that the Clinton economy of record growth, record dow, etc., shows the success of his tax increases. You can’t have it both ways. As I keep saying (and demonstrating) over and over and over again, there’s absolutely no evidence that either upswing in the economy was because of changes to tax policy. Wanting it to be true doesn’t make it true.

If what you’re suggesting is correct, we should be able to look at the charts without knowing when changes to tax policy were made, or what changes were made, and point to the years in which taxes were increased or decreased. That we can’t do that seriously weakens your argument.

Show me the numbers. If I make 1 million dollars, and I pay 10% to SS, I paid $100,000 to SS. If I make $100,000 and pay the same 10%, I paid $10,000.

Dude, look at the tax code. The taxable amount is capped at $97,500 in 2007. Anything you make over that is exempt from social security taxation. If you make 1 million dollars in 2007, you’ll pay 6.2% of the first $97,500 of that income in social security taxes. That’s, $6,045, or 0.6% of your income. If you make $100,000, you pay the same $6,045, but for you it’s 6% of your income. The $100,000 man is taxed at ten times the rate of the million dollar man to fund social security.

But in real life, it’s more complicated than that. For one, the 6.2% you pay is actually matched by your employer (who simply treats this as part of the cost of employing you — for them, it’s just another payroll expense), so you’re really paying 12.4%. And this tax is only collected on payroll income. Income from interest, dividends, capital gains, etc., are all totally exempt from the tax. Generally speaking, the higher your income is, the more of your income is likely to be coming from non-payroll sources, meaning that higher incomes tend to be taxed at an even lower rate than demonstrated by my workup of your example incomes.

Your “handy dandy chart” proves [that Bush 41's tax increase destroyed the economy] for me.

Where? My handy-dandy chart doesn’t even start until 1995. Bush raised taxes in 1990 or 1991, and didn’t leave office until early 1993. There’s no way to tell (from my chart) what the impact of Bush 41’s tax hike was. And the numbers I’ve since posted don’t show any such horrific decline following Bush 41’s increase.

Foodstamps?

Unless you’re considering the stamps themselves to be “goods,” I don’t see how that qualifies. The food is still produced and distributed by private enterprise. The government simply helps some low-income people buy the food. There’s no control of production or distribution by the government (although maybe they produce and distribute the stamps — I’m not sure about that, but I doubt it’s what you were getting at). Try again.

You did say “When his share of the total tax burden is roughly equivalent to his share of the total wealth”, which I am to assume means his “fair share of the total wealth”

No, you’re not to assume that. The word “fair” is not implicit in anything I’ve said about his share of wealth. I merely stated that his fair share of the tax burden ought to be determined by his actual share of the wealth. “Fair” refers to the relationship between his share of the tax burden and his share of the wealth. I should think that would be obvious from both my words and my context. Of course, if anyone else is still reading this and read that the way Tman did, please raise your hand and point it out. In any case, I have since clarified, so that you should now understand in no uncertain terms exactly what I meant. And armed with that understanding, you can go re-read what I wrote, and see that what I wrote is wholly consistent with that understanding.

I’m saying that there is no “collective net worth”. The economy is expandable and, in any practical sense, limitless.

That neither follows nor makes sense. Yes, the economy can expand over time, but at any fixed point in time, its size can be quantified. (That’s what GDP is, get it?) Just because the numbers are not constantly fixed doesn’t mean we can’t talk about relative shares at any given point in time. The numbers may be different in 2007 than they were in 2006, but we can still talk meaningfully about what percentage of total reported income you had in 2006, and what percentage of total taxes paid in 2006 were paid by you. This really isn’t a difficult concept; I almost think you’re intentionally pretending to not get it, because getting it wouldn’t serve your argument.

As for the Ted example, I stand by it. What you’re basically arguing is that we can never really know how much money anybody really has or really made, so our decisions on how much to tax people shouldn’t be based on any of that. But that’s nonsense, and I think even many of the most virulently anti-tax forces would acknowledge it as such.

I think I’ve exhausted the tank here tgirsch.

You and I will never agree on the benefits of across the board tax cuts vs. tax increases in terms of the economy. Every study you show me that says they aren’t effective, I could show you another that says the opposite.

I think we do agree in principle that we need to allow the individual to be responsible for their own lives in society, and that as a civilized nation we can afford to protect those that are not as fortunate as we are.

I still don’t think you understand what I mean when I say there is no “fair share of the net worth/wealth/GDP” of the country, but trying to get you to understand it is really not that important to me.

Thanks for putting up with me, and we now return you to your regularly scheduled anti-conservative programming.

Tman:

We can agree to disagree, but we can’t both be right.

Every study you show me that says they aren’t effective, I could show you another that says the opposite.

Except that every study you’ve shown me that purportedly demonstrates this uses flawed numbers — numbers that are flawed even according to the latest anti-tax proponent you cited. Maybe your standard of debate is different than mine, but when the numbers support my position and not yours (even many of the numbers you provided), then that’s a win for me. Yay, me.

I still don’t think you understand what I mean when I say there is no “fair share of the net worth/wealth/GDP” of the country

It’s not so much that I don’t understand what you mean; it’s more that I don’t understand why you say it. Nobody here (or anywhere else that I can tell) has argued that there’s any such thing as a “fair share of wealth.” So you’re attacking a position held by exactly no one when you say that.

Thanks for putting up with me

No problem. Contrary to what some of our detractors say, we encourage open debate here.

This is going to sound condescending, and I don’t mean it to be, but I genuinely hope you’ve learned something here. Prior to this debate, you seemed not to know how social security taxation works, for example, or how the trust fund works. You seemed not to know the importance of correcting year-over-year figures against a fixed standard, whether it be a certain year’s dollars or the GDP. Understanding these things will help you make more informed decisions when weighing various debates, even if you don’t wind up on the sam side as me.

Have a good day.

We agree on something, you DO sound condescending!

We agree on something, you DO sound condescending!

http://images.despair.com/products/demotivators/compromise.jpg

Okay, so now that you guys’re done, I’ve got a question for you.

Recalling Ted’s (?) old question of whether to normalize tax revenues to GDP, I think I have to come down on his side.

Imagine, stupidly, that everyone agreed on what the gov’t should be doing w/ taxes, and that ther is no inflation., and that one perfect year, they pulled it off exactly; zero debt, zero surplus, all programs properly funded, all taxes collected fairly. Say that cost $100. Say the GDP was $1000. (Yes, the world has shrunk here.) Next year, say that the population is the same size and the needed services are identical. The outlays will be identical (Ahem; work with me here.). But there was a gold bonanza and we make a killing selling to foreign investors. GDP is $2000 this year. What should be the target tax revenue? $100 of course. Needs haven’t changed, and so the same amount of money will still cover them.

Clearly, in this example, it’s a bad idea to normalize to GDP.

On the other hand, obviously you need to normalize to inflation. And if the population doubled, maybe we’d need $190 in taxes, or even $210.

So, it comes down to this: GDP isn’t a priori something that should be scaled to. The ability of tax revenues to cover expenses is.

So, does normalizing to GDP do a decent job of faking taking things like demographic changes into account, or is it a red herring?

Dan M:

The problem with your example is that you’re talking about needed tax revenue rather than actual tax revenue. In the second year of your example, assuming tax rates stayed the same as year one (10%), then in year two, you would actually collect $200, and corrected against GDP, your revenues would still be 10% — same as year one.

Take that example further. Suppose, as you say, expenses (outlays) stay at $100 despite the doubling of the GDP. If you’re also correcting outlays against GDP, from year one to year two, your outlays have gone from 10% to 5%. This would indicate, then, that you can afford a tax cut.

In a more general sense, it’s not crucial that you correct against GDP specifically, as long as you’re correcting all of the relevant numbers against a common scale. You can use inflation, you can use the GDP, etc., as long as you use the same scale for all the numbers you’re talking about. That the results look pretty much the same whether you correct against inflation or the GDP is evidence, to me, that the GDP normalization method is a sound one.

Getting back to Ted’s objection to correcting against GDP, his objection was more narrow: he was saying that if the theory is that a tax cut will increase the GDP, and therefore increase tax revenues, then you can’t test that theory when you’re correcting numbers against the GDP, because you’re basically “dividing out” any gains. I disagree with him on that, and I don’t think we ever fully resolved it, but I don’t think that objection is necessarily relevant in this context.

In any case, the reason why I generally correct against GDP is twofold: One, because GDP is generally viewed as a valid overall benchmark of how the economy as a whole is doing; and two, more importantly, that’s how the GAO and OMB do it.

Okay. I read your response as answering ‘yes’ to my last suggestion: GDP-norm doesn’t “actually” perfectly reflect flat spending power of tax revenue (that’d just be inflation, or “constant dollars”), but it happens to do a darned good job of normalizing to how well the revenue covers the expenses.

This seems entirely reasonable to me as a pragmatic heuristic. It’s just that it’s not a strictly rigorous accounting.

Dan M:
but it happens to do a darned good job of normalizing to how well the revenue covers the expenses

Only if both revenue and expenses are normalized to GDP. Again, it doesn’t much matter what you’re normalizing against, as long as you’re normalizing against something common.

As counterintuitive as it may seem, the way to answer Ted’s objection is to ignore tax revenue entirely. Per Ted’s objection, the supply-side theory is that tax cuts spur the economy, thus increasing tax receipts. What we need to focus on is the first half of that equation. Since “the economy” is generally measured in GDP, that’s what you check, no normalization necessary: what happens to the GDP after taxes are increased or decreased? According to Tman’s graph, the effect of tax cuts on the GDP is negligible, therefore supply-side theory has failed in this case. If their claimed mechanism for increasing tax revenues doesn’t work as advertised, they’re sunk.