Like so many people, in so many countries, who started out to “spread the wealth,” Barack Obama has ended up spreading poverty.
Have you ever heard anyone as incoherent as the people staging protests across the country? Taxpayers ought to be protesting against having their money spent to educate people who end up unable to say anything beyond repeating political catchphrases.
Advertisement
It is hard to understand politics if you are hung up on reality. Politicians leave reality to others. What matters in politics is what you can get the voters to believe, whether it bears any resemblance to reality or not.
I hate getting bills that show a zero balance. If I don’t owe anything, why bother me with a bill? There is too much junk mail already.
Radical feminists seem to assume that men are hostile to women. But what would they say to the fact that most of the women on the Titanic were saved, and most of the men perished — due to rules written by men and enforced by men on the sinking ship?
If he were debating Barack Obama, Newt Gingrich could chew him up and spit him out.
Whether the particular issue is housing, medical care, or anything in between, the agenda of the Left is to take the decision out of the hands of those directly involved and transfer that decision to third parties, who pay no price for making decisions that turn out to be counterproductive.
It is truly the era of the New Math when a couple making $125,000 a year each are taxed at rates that are said to apply to “millionaires and billionaires.”
On many issues, the strongest argument of the Left is that there is no argument. This has been the Left’s party line on the issue of man-made global warming and the calamities they claim will follow. But there are many scientists — some with Nobel Prizes — who have repudiated the global-warming hysteria.
With professional athletes earning megabucks incomes, it is a farce to punish their violations of rules with fines. When Serena Williams was fined $2,000 for misconduct during a tennis match, that was like fining you or me a nickel or a dime. Suspensions are something that even the highest-paid athletes can feel.
Most of us may lament the fact that so many more people are today dependent on food stamps and other government subsidies. But dependency usually translates into votes for whoever is handing out the benefits, so an economic disaster can be a political bonanza, as it was for Franklin D. Roosevelt. Don’t count Obama out in 2012.
Politicians can solve almost any problem — usually by creating a bigger problem. But, so long as the voters are aware of the problem that the politicians have solved, and unaware of the bigger problems they have created, political “solutions” are a political success.
Do people who advocate special government programs for blacks realize that the federal government has had special programs for American Indians, including affirmative action, since the early 19th century — and that American Indians remain one of the few groups worse off than blacks?
I hope the people who are challenging Obamacare in the Supreme Court point out that the equal application of the laws, mandated by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, is violated when the president can arbitrarily grant hundreds of waivers to the Obamacare law to his political favorites, while everyone else has to follow its costly provisions.
People who live within their means are increasingly being forced to pay for people who didn’t live within their means — whether individual home buyers here or whole nations in Europe.
Regardless of how the current Republican presidential nomination process ends, I hope that they will never again have these televised “debates” among a crowd of candidates, which just turn into a circular firing squad — damaging whoever ends up with the nomination, and leaving the voters knowing only who is quickest with glib answers.
Have you noticed that we no longer seem to be hearing the old familiar argument that illegal aliens are just taking jobs that Americans won’t do?
"...what would [radical feminists] say to the fact that most of the women on the Titanic were saved, and most of the men perished — due to rules written by men and enforced by men on the sinking ship?"
How about this?:
1) The men also designed the ship and wrecked it.
2) The women could have done very well without the mens' help, thank you.
3) "most of the men perished". So what? More room then for women to become engineers and design ships that won't sink.
1. Yes, men designed and built it, along with the vast majority of things that make our lives safe and comfortable, even vehicles that sometimes have accidents. You're welcome.
2. The women could not have been saved but for the willingness of men to save them. If men decided that they wanted the spaces in the lifeboats rather than giving them to the women and children, you may rest assured that they would have gotten them. The women survived only because the men chose to give their lives for them.
3. "So what?"?????!!!!!! The lack of respect for these selfless men who died for the women on board is breathtaking. If spitting on the graves of fallen heroes makes you feel better about yourself you have my pity, but a mere "thank you" would have been more appropriate.
Technically, the ship was wrecked by an iceberg, not by men. And it's not clear that the state of engineering at the time would have yielded a better design from engineers who happened to be women.
As far as the women doing fine without the men's help, the point is that the men did help, though they had nothing to gain and many of them lost their lives. Would radical feminists have been helping the men into lifeboats, or proposing a lottery to see who got aboard, or what? Chivalry deserves to be honored, not written off. Helping people survive is not a form of oppression.
"Politicians can solve almost any problem — usually by creating a bigger problem". Hard to put it any better than that - as a glance at pretty much any of Obama's policies makes clear.
Just more evidence, as if any was needed, of why we should all be rooting for Obama to “fail”. Which, as a certain President might say, depends upon what the meaning of “fail” is ... External Link
SOWELL: With professional athletes earning megabucks incomes, it is a farce to punish their violations of rules with fines. When Serena Williams was fined $2,000 for misconduct during a tennis match, that was like fining you or me a nickel or a dime.
ME: And Thomas Sowell, however inadvertently, finally embraces the logic of progressive taxation.
No. My point is that the pain should be spread as evenly as possible, and that, given that losing a given percentage of one's income hurts less for the high earners than it hurts the low earners, a (mild) level of progressivity is justified.
Your "point" is puerile, not profound. No, I can't take seriously the idea that Dr. Sowell even inadvertently supports anything like progressive taxation. Crawl back to Zuccotti Park and google "Sowell" and "progressive taxation." Basic Economics.
As I said above, you are right. My initial calculation was off, and your additional argument about the suspension being equivalent to a flat tax convinced me I was wrong.
This whole argument about the pain associated with taxes is a strawman. It starts with the premise that evenly distributing something is fair and just. I reject that premise. Just because taxes are painful doesn't mean that the pain has to be distributed evenly. I also reject that the pain isn't already distributed evenly - except for those that don't pay at all. 20% is 20% - random number.
YOU: This whole argument about the pain associated with taxes is a strawman. It starts with the premise that evenly distributing something is fair and just. I reject that premise.
ME: No, it begins with the premise of dimminishing marginal utility of money.
YOU: Just because taxes are painful doesn't mean that the pain has to be distributed evenly.
ME: I guess I just disagree. Taxation is by force, therefore the pain from it should be as evenly distributed as possible (though other issues than just fairness figure in to how to make a good tax system).
YOU: I also reject that the pain isn't already distributed evenly - except for those that don't pay at all.
ME: I actually agree here, as the current system, once state and local taxation is taken into account, pretty much IS flat to mildly progressive, which is what I'm advocating. Not to say that the current system couldn't be improved, but the current level of progressivity of the tax system as a whole is pretty good.
But taxes ARE painful, and the pain generated thereby should be applied equally. And, as Sowell correctly notes, all else held constant, losing a given percentage of a very high income hurts less than losing that same percentage of a much lower income.
So are colonoscopies but the infliction of pain is not the reason to have one (except for a few disturbed people, perhaps.)
Taxes are to fund the government. They are not supposed to be an instrument of social policy. The Founding Fathers knew this and that is why equal apportionment was specifically in the constitution.
Ostensibly, we pay taxes not as punishment inflicted on us by our government but to fund the goverment's operations.
We expect to derive benefits and protections from government. Government is not our jailer, not yet anyway.
YOU (initially quoting me): "But taxes ARE painful, ..."
So are colonoscopies but the infliction of pain is not the reason to have one (except for a few disturbed people, perhaps.)
ME: Colonoscopies aren't painful in my experience, as they put under for the procedure. Now, a sigmoidoscopy...those are hell.
But seriously, I'm not saying that the pain is the reason we have taxation. I'm saying that, given that taxes are painful, the pain should be spread as evenly as possible.
YOU: I believe equal apportionment does just that. You pay X% and I pay X%. The Founding Fathers were exactly right about this.
ME: I do not believe that this is what the Constitution originally said. What it said was:
"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."
That is, the percentage of the (direct) tax in question that each state must pay is the same as their share of the total population. Thus, if Congress passed a tax to raise ten billion dollars and Vermont had 10% of the US population (adjusted for untaxed Indians, etc.), Vermont had to cough up a billion dollars. That says nothing at all about how Vermont was to go about collecting the money.
YOU: Any sort of graduated tax is the definition social engineering.
ME: No, it isn't. If you turn around and give that money to the poor, then you are social engineering. But if you are imposing the same burden on everyone (say, to pay for national defense), you are only engaging in social engineering to the degree that all tax systems are social engineering.
The question is, is the millionaire who pays, say, 100,000 of their income of a 1,000,000 dollars a year in taxes facing the same burden of someone who makes 40K and pays 4K?
I would say that in such a situation, the poorer person is facing a higher burden, as the foregone 4K cuts into their necessities than the 100K cut into the rich person's necessities.
Remember, even the person who calls for a flat tax has already implicitly admitted that different people are hurt differently by losing the same AMOUNT of money. That is, a head tax of 10K hurts the 40K worker more than it would hurt the millionaire. I'm just saying that that logic still applies even when the percentages (rather than the amount) are equal.
You misinterpret the Constitution. That is why the 16th amendment was required because the socialists intended to deliberately violate the equal apportionment clause. They would also have run afoul of equal protection as well.
"YOU: Any sort of graduated tax is the definition social engineering.
ME: No, it isn't."
Yes, it is, and protestations to the contrary do not constitute an argument. The very arguments that the left use are that the rich have more and should subsidize the poor through higher taxes so my argument stands unrefuted. The rich do not pay their 'fair' share. BTW, just what is a fair share? I know what I think a fair share is, an equal burden for everyone. Give me some sorts of numbers. I would also be curious how you defend those numbers and then, as you have done, criticise those who demand much bigger numbers. How do you stop them from running amok? They have done so before.
"If you turn around and give that money to the poor, then you are social engineering."
And if I ever advocate that the government dole out money to the poor then I will accept this criticism. I am not advocating any such thing.
"The question is, is the millionaire who pays, say, 100,000 of their income of a 1,000,000 dollars a year in taxes facing the same burden of someone who makes 40K and pays 4K?"
Perhaps you are a liberal arts major as a mathemetician would say 10% of something is a comparable percentage to 10% of something else.
"I would say that in such a situation, the poorer person is facing a higher burden, as the foregone 4K cuts into their necessities than the 100K cut into the rich person's necessities."
So you make this statement and yet argue that this is not social engineering? This is not subsidizing someone with a lesser income at the expense of someone with a larger one? This is not an indirect transfer of wealth by making the richer person pay more for his share of government? Did you read this quote before you posted it?
Also, this argument can be made for traffic tickets, tolls on roads, puplic utility services, telephones, groceries and anything else. Should we have a completely separate pricing structure for those who have more than those who have less. Should the parking ticket for a rich man be $1000.00 while for a poor man only $100.00? How far do you intend to take this enforced economic equity?
"Remember, even the person who calls for a flat tax has already implicitly admitted that different people are hurt differently by losing the same AMOUNT of money."
I am not sure I use the word hurt. Perhaps a better turn of phrase might be abused, or mistreated, or denied equal protection. I am not suggesting that the rich man is hurt by a larger loss. What I am speaking to is whether the rich man deserves to be abused by his government by virture of merely possessing his wealth. This argument of yours is plain, old-fashioned class envy and socialist redistibution of wealth. Marx and Lenin both said the one of the conerstones of socialism is progressive tax rates and the more progressive the better. Dress it up in any fancy language you want but that is what it ultimately is.
"That is, a head tax of 10K hurts the 40K worker more than it would hurt the millionaire. I'm just saying that that logic still applies even when the percentages (rather than the amount) are equal."
No, I disagree. You may feel you are not as rich. True you are not. You may be unable to buy a yacht or a mansion. True you may not. You may not even be able to afford college or a house. True you may not.
Since when did the constitution grant the government the right to redress by force any of these inequities of life?
Equal apportionment is critical because without it today you get to take from someone richer than you for your benefit. Tomorrow someone even more poorer than you will do to you what you did to someone else. The Founding Fathers understood this very well. They had seen it before. people using the tax code to remake society, to redress grievances or to punish enemies and reward friends. We have that now and it is ugly, destructive and was entirely predictable.
Do you honestly believe the government should have the right redress these inequities?
YOU: You misinterpret the Constitution. That is why the 16th amendment was required because the socialists intended to deliberately violate the equal apportionment clause. They would also have run afoul of equal protection as well.
ME: I don't think I do, and you make very little effort to refute me on this. Again, look at what the Constitution says on the matter (and please correct me if you are thinking of some other part of it):
"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers..."
This says nothing that would permit a flat income tax. It doesn't matter how much of the nation's INCOME, say, Maryland had vs. how much New York had. What matters is how much of the nation's POPULATION it has vs. that of New York. This is about as plain as it could be, since it makes plain that the tax burden is to be apportioned the exact same way as representatives, which does not now and never did depend on how rich or poor a state was but solely on how many people it has. And it says nothing at all about how the state is to apportion the tax burden onto its citizens.
The Sixteenth Amendment was therefore necessary for ANY income tax other than a flat rate per head. Even a flat RATE wouldn't do, because the revenue thus generated wouldn't be based on just population but on income as well.
If you disagree with this, I would hope you could say where, and not just assert that I'm an misinterpreting the Constitution without giving any reason for thinking this.
This issue is kind of key to our whole debate, as I sometimes think that it sounds like you are defending a flat AMOUNT tax and sometimes that you are defending a flat RATE tax. You generally sound like you are defending the latter, and that is the presumption I will proceed on, by sometimes it sound like you are defending a flat AMOUNT tax where everyone pays the same amount.
YOU: Yes, it is, and protestations to the contrary do not constitute an argument.
ME: Ditto statements in the affirmative. And you split off my protest to the contrary from what followed it. To whit:
YOU (initially quoting me): "If you turn around and give that money to the poor, then you are social engineering."
And if I ever advocate that the government dole out money to the poor then I will accept this criticism. I am not advocating any such thing.
ME: I did not mean this as applying to you. If I say "most people aren't Nazis, but if you love Hitler and his thinking, you are a Nazi" that isn't me accusing you of loving Hitler. It was a hypothetical, tied into my protestation. IF you take money from one party and give it to another THEN that is social experiment. But if you take a (somewhat) higher percentage of the rich's money in an attempt to compensate for their lower marginal utility of money, then you are not attempting to change the relative well-being of the rich and the poor. Ergo, no experiment (save, again, to the degree that all tax systems are social experiments).
YOU (quoting me initially): "The question is, is the millionaire who pays, say, 100,000 of their income of a 1,000,000 dollars a year in taxes facing the same burden of someone who makes 40K and pays 4K?"
Perhaps you are a liberal arts major as a mathematician would say 10% of something is a comparable percentage to 10% of something else.
ME: Now you are just begging the question. Yes, IF the measurement of tax burden is most properly done using straight percentages, then the millionaire and the poorer person have the same burden. But I think that the burden of being taxed x% of one's income goes down as the income goes up.
YOU (quoting me initially): "I would say that in such a situation, the poorer person is facing a higher burden, as the foregone 4K cuts into their necessities than the 100K cut into the rich person's necessities."
So you make this statement and yet argue that this is not social engineering?
ME: Yes.
YOU: This is not subsidizing someone with a lesser income at the expense of someone with a larger one?
ME: In terms of mere money, yes. But not (assuming diminishing marginal utility of money) in terms of well-being, which is what should be cared about. It isn't the cash itself we value, but the utility that can be derived from what it can be used to purchase. If that utility declines as income rises, then a (somewhat) progressive tax system is necessary to PREVENT a transfer of well-being from the poor to the rich. That is not to say that a progressive tax system is SUFFICIENT to prevent it. If the tax is too progressive, it might do worse than a flat tax.
So there IS an issue of guess work, but both the idea that the utility of money diminishes as income rises and the idea that it remains constant (such that the pain of losing x% of one’s income is constant across different values of income) are guess, and to me the former seems more probable.
This is not an indirect transfer of wealth by making the richer person pay more for his share of government? Did you read this quote before you posted it?
YOU: Also, this argument can be made for traffic tickets, tolls on roads, public utility services, telephones, groceries and anything else. Should we have a completely separate pricing structure for those who have more than those who have less? Should the parking ticket for a rich man be $1000.00 while for a poor man only $100.00? How far do you intend to take this enforced economic equity?
ME: This is one of those areas where you kind of sound like you favor a flat AMOUNT tax. After all, that is the situation with traffic tickets. They aren't flat PERCENTAGES of income any more than they are progressive percentages. I really do try to interpret what you say honestly, but as tickets currently mimic a flat amount tax, you come off here as if you were advocating a flat amount tax.
I personally have no trouble with the current system, as tickets are small and any level of extra burden on the poor is minor (and should have been avoided in the first place).
How about you? Assuming you do favor flat RATE taxes and not flat AMOUNT taxes, do you think that tickets should be calculated as a flat rate of one's income?
YOU: Equal apportionment is critical because without it today you get to take from someone richer than you for your benefit.
ME: Again, while you ask reasonable questions and I would like to answer, it's hard to do so without understanding for sure if you back flat AMOUNT taxes, or flat rate taxes, so I will comment a little and wait for further clarification. You may feel that you have been clear, but, unfortunately, it is not clear to me. Anyways...
ASSUMING YOU BACK FLAT RATE TAXES:
Under flat RATE taxes, you still get to take advantage of the richer person, as they still pay a higher amount. The only real moral justification I can see for supporting flat RATE taxes is idea that the guy making a million a year is hurt the same by losing 100K as is the person who makes 40K by losing their 4K. That is, to believe that money yields a declining benefit to happiness as income increases, such that the loss is constant in terms of percentages. I basically agree that the happiness declines, but that it likely does so in terms of both amounts and percentages. But I don't know how fast it declines, therefore, it seems to me that the best course of action is to have a tax burden that is only mildly progressive, which is about what we have now.
ASSUMING THAT BACK FLAT AMOUNT TAXES:
I guess my answer is pretty much the same as above, except that I cannot appeal to your belief that the happiness benefit declines in amount, if not in percentages.
I'll close without having answered some of your other questions. If you would like them answered, just confirm for me if you favor flat rate taxes (which I'm pretty sure is the case) or if you only favor flat amount taxes, and specify which questions you most want me to deal with. I've been forced to let a number go by, and my posts are long enough as is.
"But not (assuming diminishing marginal utility of money) in terms of well-being, ..."
A dangerous argument. Diminishing utility? The rich man starts a factory that employs many people. Does he need the factory for his well being? Probably not. Is society considerably better off for his having started the factory? Yes, jobs and taxes that were not there before now appear. The workers' well being is improved by their having work and an income. No doubt their happiness (as if that is any of our business) is probably also higher. The money could have been distributed to the poor but then what? Still no job, still no taxes, still no wealth created. They are fed for a while and society as a whole is just as poor as ever. And it is hard to imagine that decent people are happier being wards of the state than rather supporting themselves.
"... is necessary to PREVENT a transfer of well-being from the poor to the rich."
What the flip is 'well-being'? And how do you (I mean YOU) measure it and how does one transfer it.
" no trouble with the current system, as tickets are small and any level of extra burden on the poor is minor "
Still with the social engineering. For you taxes or tickets are OK so long as you think they are not too much of a burden, whatever that level might be.
While I am not advocating a flat tax what I am arguing is that why should some be treated differently under the law simply because others want their money? You speak as though somehow you have the wisdom to transfer wealth and money and create well-being. Where did you study the transfer of well-being? What formulae do you use to calculate how progressive tax rates will lead to well-being? And where exactly, does the constitution allow for the government to try to establish well-being? I am aware of defense and other things but not this. Where is the well-being clause in the constitution vesting the government with the power to regulate it or transfer it or create it? Promote not provide that is what the founding documents say.
"... do you think that tickets should be calculated as a flat rate of one's income?"
Interesting idea and exactly what Sowell was saying. The question is what is a ticket compared to a tax. The ticket is a punishment for an infraction. The tax code is to fund the government.
Like it or not the government was not established to pick winners and losers. It was not established to reward some at the expense of others. It was not established to create or provide happiness or well-being. (I will be fascinated how you define well-being and how it is measured.)
We have lots of countries on Earth where this has been tried. Some are still around. My, my but they do have their problems. And the more we emulate them the more our problems grow. But we did not start out like that. It is almost as if some really smart people who had studied governments all through history had realized some fundamental truths about people and government and opted to avoid them by creating the most extraordinary Constituion and government ever seen on Earth. If only their descendents had had the wisdom to to retain that system and not go off chasing unobtainable utopias.
"... happiness declines, but that it likely does so in terms of both amounts and percentages. But I don't know how fast it declines, therefore, it seems to me that the best course of action is to have a tax burden that is only mildly progressive, which is about what we have now."
You seem to be confused about what our government is for. The government was established to provide an environment where people can pursue their happiness. Government is not there to insure happiness or to equalize happiness or to shift happiness from those who appear to have an over abundance to those who appear not to have.
BTW, that was one of the arguments used originally. Just a slight progessivity and all will be well. The highest tax rate ever achieved in peace time was ... %92. And if the leftists get their way we will return to that rate asap. I repeat the moment you have a system that starts deciding who is too rich, too successful, too happy then ugly and ultimately destructive things are going to happen. Read the history of the tax code in this country before you assume that you can control this. The Founding fathers never thought they could and they were a great deal better than the crop of pols we have now.
Here is the definition of well-being:
well-be·ing noun.
a good or satisfactory condition of existence; a state characterized by health, happiness, and prosperity; welfare: to influence the well-being of the nation and its people.
Here is the definition of happiness:
hap·pi·ness noun.
1.the quality or state of being happy. 2.good fortune; pleasure; contentment; joy.
Please enumerate the tax rates that achieve these. Please give me a reasonable example of how the IRS will collect well being and happiness from one person and give it to another. What is the rate of progessivity that achieves happiness?
Here is a thought if you really want to maximze happiness and well-being then how about this. I have a house with unused rooms in which no one lives or sleeps. It seems to me that by your reasoning the government should force me to trade with a family that has a shortage of space but whose house is the right size for me. What is the difference in this case? Never mind that the poorer family would just use the rooms as mere living space and I use mine to run my business and generate taxes and economic activity that benefit many the fact remains that the total happiness appears to be increased by taking from me and giving to them. BTW, do you have any unused rooms in your house?
14th:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
16th:
“ The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. ”
Article I, Section 2, Clause 3::
Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers...
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1:
The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises...but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States...
Article I, Section 9, Clause 4:
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
If the 16th was not needed then they would not have passed it. The articles work together to make their argument.
