Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Atlas Mugged
Columnist Ron Hart looks forward to an Obama administration and writes:
I want to appease the new administration and not be too productive. So, upon Obama's passing his new redistribution plan, I will slow my work schedule, lay off a few people (Obama's got their back) and let someone else bust his tail since I will now be able to get "redistributed wealth" from those poor fools who are ambitious, energetic, work hard and have made good decisions.
I cannot wait, as I need a break. And it will be nice to not be vilified by politicians. It will feel good to be liked again.
Wish me luck for the next few years. I am looking forward to a respite from hard work, taxes and creating jobs. It is a lot of responsibility that I will be able to "shrug." It is just as well, as I am tired of following my dreams anyway. It involves so much effort. I will see where those dreams are in four or eight years and catch back up with them then.
He also has a bead on McCain's next gig: "John McCain has probably all but signed a deal to become the next Viagra spokesman. He can soon spend time trying to locate all 12 of his homes."
|11.3.08 @ 7:44AM|#
One of the great libertarian myths: "working hard" equals money
and success. So.....if I put forth more or less effort, money will
magically come my way? Not at my occupation. There is a long-term
benefit and I understand the basic concept, but slacking off on the
job does not result in less income. It results in no income.
I can work really hard or expend minimal effort at my job. I will
still not make the amount of money I'd like to make.
Do teachers work harder than collection agents? To plumbers work
harder than scientists? Do politicians work harder than CEOs?
Do entrepreneurs work harder than wage-earners? Oh yeah? Even
entrepreneurs who operate at a loss.
It's time to dispense with this myth once and for all.
Further, only a libertarian would regard progressive taxation as a
redistribution plan.
Alan Vanneman|11.3.08 @ 7:48AM|#
I've never read Ron Hart before. If this is a fair sample of his work, he can quit entirely, as far as I'm concerned.
jtuf|11.3.08 @ 7:52AM|#
I know how Ron Hart feels. I've decided to switch from science teacher to "artist". Why bother building the backbone of society only to be dennounced as evil.
|11.3.08 @ 8:02AM|#
"One of the great libertarian myths: "working hard" equals money
and success. So.....
One of the great liberal myths: "all success is totally random
based on nothing more than birth, so of course smart people like us
should get to spread it around".
I am curious about how many jobs columnists create, tho.
|11.3.08 @ 8:08AM|#
Waaahhhh!!!! If Bush wins, I'm gonna leave the country.
- Ron Hart's bizarro twin, 2004.
No, you're not. STFU.
It is interesting how all of these temper tantrum fantasies
wingnuts are indulging in involve screwing people below them on the
totem pole, just to show 'em!
I'm going to stiff my waitress! I'm firing everyone with Obama
stickers on their cars! I'm so obsessed with having a little more
money that I'm going to stop earning it entirely!
Sure you are. It's the only decent way to protest the raising of
the highest marginal tax rate three.point.something points, to
where it was during the 1990s.
And, what Alan Vanneman said.
Hogan|11.3.08 @ 8:09AM|#
I will see where those dreams are in four or eight years and
catch back up with them then.
ripped from Mitch Hedberg
|11.3.08 @ 8:19AM|#
Further, only a libertarian would regard progressive
taxation as a redistribution plan.
Of course not, silly! Clearly, they mean to keep it all for
themselves, blowing it all on hookers, meth and fat 22" rims. I
know I would.
ben tej|11.3.08 @ 8:33AM|#
The thing that really bothers me about all these people
complaining about Obama spreading the wealth around is the
implication that (1) it's an idea that has never been implemented
before in America and (2) it would not be happening if McCain is
elected; both of which implications are patently false.
The fact is, we have been spreading the wealth around since we
adopted a graduated income tax. The only difference being the
current severity of redistribution. To suggest that America will
somehow become socialist because we elect a president who is
actually honest about that borders on retarded.
[Disclaimer: voted for Barr, but favor Obama as a probable winner
over McCain.]
ed|11.3.08 @ 8:53AM|#
"The John Galt Plan," Wesley Mouch was saying, "will
reconcile all conflicts. It will protect the property of the rich
and give a greater share to the poor. It will cut down the burden
of your taxes and provide you with more government benefits. It
will lower prices and raise wages. It will give more freedom to the
individual and strengthen the bonds of collective obligations. It
will combine the efficiency of free enterprise with the generosity
of a planned economy."
50 years ago that was meant to be ironic. Today it's the standard
boilerplate of both major parties. Few Americans would challenge
the inherent contradictions.
That's how low we have sunk, philosophically.
BDB|11.3.08 @ 8:56AM|#
Yeah, "I'm going to lay off all the dirty libruhs and go on welfare!" is the right wing "I'm moving to CANADA!"
|11.3.08 @ 9:02AM|#
Obama is going beyond progressive taxation. He is taking money from group A and handing it directly to B. Its welfare for the masses. Appealing to the ghetto trash in all of us might work.
|11.3.08 @ 9:06AM|#
Except, BDB, that things like laying off people actually do happen at the margin, despite joe's fantasy that businessmen are just whining because "they have less money".
T|11.3.08 @ 9:10AM|#
Charity extracted under the threat of jail is the truest
form of charity.
Sure! Because, after all, morality by stripping away all possible
choices but the good ones makes us all better people, right?
BDB|11.3.08 @ 9:21AM|#
TAO--
Sure, but not specifically to "people with Obama bumperstickers" or
whatnot. Layoffs are politically blind.
|11.3.08 @ 9:26AM|#
Would someone explain to me:
1. Why is it that returning tax rates on the rich to a little bit
higher than they were in the 1990s (and to nowhere near as high as
they were before Reagan came along) is going to have a negative
effect on the economy and jobs? People worked and lived and thrived
in the 1990s (more freely than they do now, I would say), didn't
they? Why is it, if the GOP mantra on this issue is true, that job
rates and tax rates are independent of one another?
2. Why is Obama's plan to make a few tax credits fully refundable
unfair? Isn't it the current system that is unfair (as it requires
a person to make a certain amount of money before the government
cuts him a check for whatever makes him credit-worthy, such as a
child)? Why is this "socialism," and not rather an acknowledgment
that the government has decided that certain social goods are worth
backing with money (we may disagree with that decision, but it has
been decided nonetheless) and that fairness dictates that, since it
costs a poor person just as much to provide for the basic needs of
a child (for example) as it does a person with greater means, it
shouldn't just be only the person with the greater means get the
money.
Kaiser|11.3.08 @ 9:31AM|#
I don't know if this is meant to be taken seriously or as hyperbole because I don't know the author at all. I thought it was funny either way though.
|11.3.08 @ 9:43AM|#
I can work really hard or expend minimal effort at my job. I
will still not make the amount of money I'd like to
make.
That says more about the kind of job you are willing to settle for
than the value of hard work, instasilly.
Maybe you should work hard at finding/qualifying for a better
career path, or opening your own shop?
Why is it that returning tax rates on the rich to a little bit
higher than they were in the 1990s (and to nowhere near as high as
they were before Reagan came along) is going to have a negative
effect on the economy and jobs?
Because higher taxes on the investing class means the diversion of
capital from uses that will be more economically productive, that's
why.
Why is Obama's plan to make a few tax credits fully refundable
unfair?
It depends on what level of "progressivity" you think is unfair;
his plan increases the progressivity of the tax burden.
More fundamentally, though, it increases a systemic problem, by
bringing us closer to the day when a majority of citizens pay
little or nothing in taxes, while cashing government checks of
various kinds.
|11.3.08 @ 9:43AM|#
"Why is it that returning tax rates on the rich to a little bit
higher than they were in the 1990s (and to nowhere near as high as
they were before Reagan came along) is going to have a negative
effect on the economy and jobs? People worked and lived and thrived
in the 1990s (more freely than they do now, I would say), didn't
they? "
All taxes have a negative effect on the eeconomy to the extent that
the government spends the money less efficiently than the private
sector (always). Just because the economy didn't come off the rails
instantly on the day the law raising taxes was signed doesn't mean
crap. Your goal is obviously to tax right up to the point that the
economy barely struggles along - to which I reply: fuck you.
BDB|11.3.08 @ 9:45AM|#
"Your goal is obviously to tax right up to the point that the
economy barely struggles along"
A French King (I forget which) called this "plucking the feathers
from a chicken without making it squeal". That's about right.
|11.3.08 @ 9:47AM|#
"Why is Obama's plan to make a few tax credits fully refundable
unfair? Isn't it the current system that is unfair "
hmm - can say yes to both options?
"the government has decided that certain social goods are worth
backing with money (we may disagree with that decision, but it has
been decided nonetheless) and that fairness dictates that..."
The muggers have decided to take our wallet and watch - isn't any
argument about fairness pretty silly after that?
|11.3.08 @ 9:51AM|#
domoarrigato,
There is no action so reprehensible that the government cannot
justify it to its groupies.
BDB|11.3.08 @ 9:51AM|#
The current system is unfair because income tax should only do what it was originally designed for--apply to only billionaires and even then at a 1% rate, not 40%.
|11.3.08 @ 9:52AM|#
Ethan:
1) So, you think it's a good idea to raise taxes in a recessionary
environment? With likely price deflation? With a tax raise on
businesses making whatever Team Obama has decided this weeks number
is? Why don't you tell us why corporate taxes are a good idea in
the first place?
2) How are Obama's tax credits, with no decrease in spending,
sustainable? I am betting the tax credits are the first thing they
push back, since the math just doesn't work without massive cuts
somewhere (the military) and that can't happen with Obama's pending
War with Pakistan. And excuse me, fairness? If you want to talk
fair, how is fair that you think I should pay more money to
government and you shouldn't? If you want to pay more, go ahead. I
don't want to - why do you think I should?
|11.3.08 @ 9:53AM|#
Layoffs aren't politically motivated? At the margins, they just
might be. Historically, examples abound of businessmen taking
actions that don't maximize their profits - like turning away black
travelers from your motel.
My boss is particularly looking forward to the "card check" union
elections because, without the secret ballot, he'll now know
exactly who voted for the union. And one isn't much of a conniver
if one can't figure out a way to retaliate against such people
without running afoul of the law.
|11.3.08 @ 9:55AM|#
SF,
QFT
Call me an a-hole, but I refuse to contribute to charity while my
income gets redistributed forceably. I pay 20-30k more in taxes
than I can ever hope to beenfit from public services - so thats
plenty of charity from me.
|11.3.08 @ 9:58AM|#
"My boss is particularly looking forward to the "card check"
union elections..."
good for him. If I owned a business that unionized - I would shut
the doors the very next day. Eat it.
|11.3.08 @ 9:58AM|#
Obama is going beyond progressive taxation. He is taking
money from group A and handing it directly to B. Its welfare for
the masses. Appealing to the ghetto trash in all of us might
work.
What a load of bull. The GOP has been a big user of tax credits and
not considered it welfare, i.e. child tax credits, EITC, education
tax credits, etc. It only became socialism when a Democrat came
along and found out, "Hey, people like lower taxes."
WalterMiddy|11.3.08 @ 10:00AM|#
Hart writes like PJ O'Rourke, and is very well followed and liked. He is in 40 papers in the south and carries the torch for us to the masses. It is hard for him to get too REason magazine technical with all of this, but be assured, there is no smarter writer working today.
marc h.|11.3.08 @ 10:01AM|#
"The Republican argument of the moment seems to be that the
difference between capitalism and socialism corresponds to the
difference between a top marginal income-tax rate of 35 per cent
and a top marginal income-tax rate of 39.6 per cent"
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/11/03/081103taco_talk_hertzberg
Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, 1776:
""The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. .
. . The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal
expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets
off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which
they possess. . . . It is not very unreasonable that the rich
should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to
their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."
BDB|11.3.08 @ 10:02AM|#
I've seen this quote being copied and pasted by liberals on just about every blog (one of the rarer examples where they spam instead of conservatives), and Smith is talking about a very specific situation in that passage. Not society at large.
|11.3.08 @ 10:03AM|#
Taxes are NOT charity. Most of it goes to public works,
medicare, social security, and education. Very little goes to
charity. I agree that NONE of it should go to charity, but the case
is exaggerated.
Domarrigato, I'd like to point out a long list of benefits that you
get: police, fire, education, libraries, roads, freeways, airports,
public transit, unemployment insurance, social security,
disability, student loans, ....the list goes on and on. Do the
math. Do you really think that people who can't afford to build
their own private roads or pay the cops or firefighters every time
they need help should simply lie down in a ditch and die?
As for Dean,
You assume that all power over my economic fate (being
hypothetical, btw) lies with me and that all opportunities are
there for the taking. They simply are not. Again. Do the
math.
Notice that I didn't ask for a handout or even sympathy. Just a
recognition that wage-earners are not lazy sods who deserve
financial failure due to a perceived lack of will.
May Ayn Rand roast in hell. :)
NatetheSkate|11.3.08 @ 10:04AM|#
Hart is damn good and fun to read. He does CNN and talk radio as a reasoned alternative to the hard right and left. He is an ex-Goldman Sachs guy, taking his career like a Michael Lewis did after Soloman Bro. He is totally cool. Let's not eat our own Alan.
|11.3.08 @ 10:15AM|#
Could we have just one fucking day of no one conflating
libertarianism and anarchy? One fucking day, please? I realize that
it would force most of you liberals to actually have to justify
funding your Robin-Hood fantasies through theft, but the burden
should be on you in the first place.
It's really very simple: Taxing me beyond the government services I
use is theft. Dress it up all pretty if you like, but theft it
remains.
|11.3.08 @ 10:16AM|#
"Most of it goes to public works, medicare, social security, and
education. Very little goes to charity."
Entitlement programs are largely charity - I will never see a
nickle from social security or medicare. School board taxes are
charity, since I have no kids, and will have to send them to
private school in my (terrible) district when I do. The police in
my town are corrupt a-holes who harrass normal citizens, lobby for
bigger pensions, and can barely handle the small amount of crime
they do have. the roads are terrible. I got unemployed this year,
actually, and the money I got for four months was less than 1/8th
of that I have paid into it since starting work. Government
"services" are worse than useless - and mostly benefit low income
people: not me. I stand by my original assessment.
Joe|11.3.08 @ 10:17AM|#
"It is interesting how all of these temper tantrum fantasies
wingnuts are indulging in involve screwing people below them on the
totem pole, just to show 'em!"
Once again, the benevolent and wise ubers-fuhrer of city
development that is the all-knowing, all-caring joe explains that
people that disagree with him are, of course, selfish, stupid and
mean.
joe knows what it takes to make a society work: People like joe.
Through his efforts, and the efforts of other like-minded people,
we have practically eradicted poverty and economic dis-equilibriums
in parts of this country (I like to call them the "joe-states").
joe's way of thinking is popular in urban areas, especially in the
northeast and mid-western rust belts. And if any of you doofuses
read and understood like joe does, you would know that those are
the areas of great prosperity and huge growth in our nation.
Look at the great joe-tropolises of Detroit, Cleveland,
Philadelphia, NYC, Baltimore and Buffalo. These places are thriving
blue-collar paradises. It is in theses locales that the "joes" have
had their greatest influence. Here the poor and down-trodden are
given a hand up, a fair chance and the tools to succeed. joe and
his fellow-travellers have done so much to help these people:
good-paying jobs are plentiful for all-comers, rents are cheap and
healthcare is ultra-affordable. The "joes" have stopped the selfish
scum from using and abusing those less fortunate and as a result
the joe-states are much better off than they would be without the
"joes".
Now some people, otherwise known as idiots, rednecks and selfish
scum, think that it is entrepreneurs and risk-takers that drive
wealth-creation. joe knows better. Journalists, lawyers,
communty-activists, city planners, academics and life-long
politicians make our country great. Any failures that we might
experience are the fault of those who stand in their way. It was
George Bush the Lesser who brought about the environment of
absolutely un-fettered laissez-faire capitalism that has brought us
now to the precipise of economic and social catastrophe. Only a
return to the policies of Carter and FDR can bring back the great
times we experienced in the 30s and 70s.
Barack Obama will bring joeism to the masses, and America will once
again become one big Buffalo, Baltimore or Chicago. God bless joe!
And vote Obama, you racist a-holes!
economist|11.3.08 @ 10:18AM|#
While Ron Hart is exaggerating here, his basic point is sound, though the effects are usually not seen until the long term (10 years+).
Kaiser|11.3.08 @ 10:19AM|#
"You assume that all power over my economic fate (being
hypothetical, btw) lies with me and that all opportunities are
there for the taking. They simply are not. Again. Do the
math."
What is not in your hands? Other than the fact that you have to pay
part of your income to the government. Even the shittiest of jobs
can be turned into amazing wealth with hard work and determination.
Sure it may take a year or even a few years of just the essentials.
No going out to eat, or to the bar. No vacations or other
extravagant spending, but with time, effort, and some knowledge you
can make millions in this country.
economist|11.3.08 @ 10:20AM|#
Sugarfree,
No, because everyone knows that all libertarians are anarchists.
And atheists. And that we patronize whores and drug dealers.
economist|11.3.08 @ 10:22AM|#
I'm not really sure, though, how a journalist being less productive is necessarily a bad thing. See the New York Times and Washington Post for MSM examples.
|11.3.08 @ 10:24AM|#
"Notice that I didn't ask for a handout or even sympathy. Just a
recognition that wage-earners are not lazy sods who deserve
financial failure due to a perceived lack of will."
Oh - forgot this. Fine, I recognize wage earners are great and
proud hard-working Americans with no lack of will. Why am I
supposed to write them a check for this again?
I won't support the demeaning of the ameircan worker by offering
them charity which they clearly do not need, and are obviously and
rightfully too proud to ask for.
economist|11.3.08 @ 10:27AM|#
Well sugarfree, you're more principled than I am.
I use public toilets,
and piss on the seats.
And then, just for fun, I walk around in summertime saying "How
about this heat?"
economist|11.3.08 @ 10:27AM|#
Careful, domo, you're sounding like a wingnut. joe might come after you.
Neu Mejican|11.3.08 @ 10:28AM|#
bigbigslacker | November 3, 2008, 9:02am | #
Obama is going beyond progressive taxation. He is taking money from
group A and handing it directly to B. Its welfare for the masses.
Appealing to the ghetto trash in all of us might work.
What Mo said.
Gullible isn't a word in the dictionary, ya know.
I got unemployed this year, actually, and the money I got for
four months was less than 1/8th of that I have paid into it since
starting work. Government "services" are worse than useless - and
mostly benefit low income people: not me. I stand by my original
assessment.
Interesting math.
Wonder if the existence of that program provided you with benefits
beyond the cash value of the checks cut directly to you for those 4
months. I wonder if you are calculating the overhead, for instance.
I wonder how you benefit from living in a community made up of
workers with a basic education. Yadda yadda.
Just because you are unable to recognize the benefits that many
government programs provide you with, does not mean that you don't
benefit. No man is an island...yadda yadda.
You should change your moniker to Daniel Plainview.
|11.3.08 @ 10:30AM|#
SugarFree | November 3, 2008, 10:15am | #
Could we have just one fucking day of no one conflating
libertarianism and anarchy? One fucking day, please?
I doubt it. Libertarians love the "taxation is theft" meme too much
for that.
Neu Mejican|11.3.08 @ 10:32AM|#
joe,
Sugarfree, at least, is explicit in his elaboration of that
meme...
"Taxing me beyond the government services I use is theft."
This allows for an actual discussion about what government services
he uses and how they should be paid for.
|11.3.08 @ 10:34AM|#
Once again, the benevolent and wise ubers-fuhrer of city
development that is the all-knowing, all-caring joe explains that
people that disagree with him are, of course, selfish, stupid and
mean.
Stiffing your waitress because you don't like her politics is
stupid and mean. Firing employees because you don't like their
politics is stupid and mean. Fantasizing about how awesome it's
going to be when you get to put people out of work just to show 'em
is stupid and mean. Yup. Stupid. Yup. Mean. Does that hurt your
widdle feelings? To effing bad.
Followed by blah blah blah, lot's of bullshit about how terrible
the wrong sort of people are, and how all the problems in America
are my fault.
Big, salty ham tears, asshole. This is the best election ever.
|11.3.08 @ 10:35AM|#
"Wonder if the existence of that program provided you with
benefits beyond the cash value of the checks cut directly to you
for those 4 months. I wonder if you are calculating the overhead,
for instance. I wonder how you benefit from living in a community
made up of workers with a basic education. Yadda yadda."
Interesting math on your part to assume there are all these
benefits. Yeah - I took the money - I consider it getting 1/8th of
my mugging back. If I could write a check that would eliminate the
program entirely - I would happily pay 10 times the amount
involved.
Basic education? Your assumption is that because government
supplies education, I should be greatful for the tangential
benefits and support the government. I assume that basic education
would be supplied regardless of government action - so I do not
feel indebted to government for providing a low quality, high cost
form of it that I currently "enjoy"
economist|11.3.08 @ 10:35AM|#
joe, the vast majority of libertarians here do not use the "taxation is theft" meme. However, we are all of a minarchist bent, and see taxation as merely a necessary evil, and something to be discouraged, overall.
|11.3.08 @ 10:36AM|#
Appealing to the ghetto trash in all of us might
work.
Oh, ok. Just don't ever, ever claim that anyone is using dogwhistle
racism, or the guy who's obsessed with me but won't post a handle
might cry.
Ghetto trash. Loud and clear, asshole.
Neu Mejican|11.3.08 @ 10:37AM|#
I do not feel indebted to government for providing a low
quality, high cost form of it that I currently "enjoy"
How you feel is not a good metric of how much you benefit.
You confuse your subjective valuation with some sort of objective
measure of benefit, perhaps.
economist|11.3.08 @ 10:37AM|#
I would say that taxing someone beyond the benefits they can be reasonably proven to derive from government programs is theft.
|11.3.08 @ 10:37AM|#
Neu,
I really have been trying to get them onto the more productive
"Excessive taxation is theft" line for a while.
|11.3.08 @ 10:38AM|#
economist,
Then the vast majority of libertarians here shouldn't take it
personally when someone slaps down the fringe-of-a-fringe who do
argue that.
|11.3.08 @ 10:38AM|#
This is the best election ever
Are you for real?
The best election ever was between Bush I, Clinton and Perot. No
one in there to really hate; Cold War's over, easy, cheap war won
in a matter of days.
We have two occupations going on, massive debt and both candidates
want to merge Economics and State (don't worry, you won't hear the
"f" word from me, even though that's what it is).
Probably one of the worst elections ever.
|11.3.08 @ 10:39AM|#
economist -
"Careful, domo, you're sounding like a wingnut. joe might come
after you."
Yeah - I ate my wingnut crunch for breakfast this morning. joe
doesn't need to come after anyone - his boy is holding all the
cards. But then again, he might still be sore enough at me for some
of the beatings I gave to him last week.
|11.3.08 @ 10:39AM|#
Ghetto trash. Loud and clear, asshole.
You retard. Ghetto trash these days is color-blind. Take a Midol,
joe, your cramps are irritating today.
|11.3.08 @ 10:40AM|#
Once you start qualifying the "taxation is theft" line, its
logic collapses.
If a mugger took $100, but spent $60 to fill a pothole in front of
your driveway, would only $40 have been theft? How about if it he
gave it to a really, really great charity?
Of course not.
economist|11.3.08 @ 10:41AM|#
Well, joe, then don't say "libertarians love the 'taxation is theft' meme". Be more specific. The anarcho-capitalists love the "taxation is theft" meme.
|11.3.08 @ 10:41AM|#
Ghetto trash these days is color-blind.
Uh huh. You were talking about Warsaw. Not.
Neu Mejican|11.3.08 @ 10:41AM|#
Sugarfree...
I count two compatriots using your meme on this thread.
Keep up the good fight.
taxing someone beyond the benefits they can be reasonably
proven to derive from government programs is theft.
As an economist, what method would you propose for calculating that
benefit? It seems a complex problem to measure objectively.
|11.3.08 @ 10:43AM|#
Uh huh. You were talking about Warsaw. Not.
It wasn't even me talking about it, joe. I just recognized that
your bitchy hypersensitivity was misplaced.
It is funny, though, that you hear ghetto trash and think "black
folks" whereas I hear it and think "lazy, self-entitled losers of
any race" and yet we're the racists.
Gotcha
Neu Mejican|11.3.08 @ 10:44AM|#
Once you start qualifying the "taxation is theft" line, its
logic collapses.
Not completely.
It just morphs into the same meme as the one used to say that
workers are underpaid/exploited by employers, that monopolies are
able to overcharge for their goods, etc...
economist|11.3.08 @ 10:44AM|#
joe,
I consider some taxation to support a minimal state to be a
necessary evil. Functions that I consider legit, mainly for
efficiency reasons: Police, courts, defense, infrastructure, basic
scientific research, and even basic education. Honestly, joe,
aren't liberals supposed to be the ones that are OK with ambiguity
and complexity?
|11.3.08 @ 10:45AM|#
If a mugger took $100, but spent $60 to fill a pothole in
front of your driveway, would only $40 have been theft? How about
if it he gave it to a really, really great charity?
If you want to make a moral equivalency between Congress and a
mugger, we can have fun with that.
|11.3.08 @ 10:48AM|#
Thank you for your answers.
...higher taxes on the investing class means the diversion of
capital from uses that will be more economically productive, that's
why.
The last month shows that to be an erroneous hypothesis. When
people have a lot of money, some of them will choose to invest it
in very high-risk derivatives and financial instruments. They
efficiently brought the financial system down, I'll give you
that.
his plan...increases a systemic problem, by bringing us closer
to the day when a majority of citizens pay little or nothing in
taxes, while cashing government checks of various kinds.
Does it? Is that even possible?
All taxes have a negative effect on the eeconomy to the extent
that the government spends the money less efficiently than the
private sector (always).
As a religious belief, that is a very powerful claim. As an
empirical notion, it's nonsense. I would say that most of the time
private markets are more efficient, but not always. And even the
most private of markets are subject to at least some form of
government regulation, so even in the best cases the private sector
scores the goal, but the government gets an assist.
Just because the economy didn't come off the rails instantly on
the day the law raising taxes was signed doesn't mean
crap.
What a wonderfully insulating notion. So now whenever something
good happens economically you can say it was due to those tax cuts
back then somewhere. Your belief in low taxes can thus never face
disconfirming evidence. Take care, though, as this cuts both ways.
Whenever anything bad happens your opponent can blame it on
Reagan's or Bush's tax cuts.
Your goal is obviously to tax right up to the point that the
economy barely struggles along - to which I reply: fuck
you.
My goal? What are you talking about? You have no idea what my
notion of a fair level of taxation would be. Perhaps it would
surprise you to realize that I thought taxes were way too high
before Reagan. Also, the only evidence you have (my earlier post)
shows that I want the economy to be in great shape.
I simply wished to make a point about fairness. If that makes you
fly into profanity and hysterics, well, I'm sorry about that.
hmm - can say yes to both options?
Well, sure. One can think that the very idea of using the tax code
(via all the various credits) to address social issues is an error.
I have some sympathy for that view. But my question concerned the
reality of the situation. So, to amend my question: IF we are going
to have these credits as a way of helping people
create/furnish/develop certain social goods, isn't it less unfair
to not require a certain level of income before we start cutting
the checks? (The people taking the credits already have more money
than similarly situated people who would also get the credit were
it not for their poverty, so this is a government program giving
money to people with greater means and withholding it from those
with less.)
The muggers have decided to take our wallet and watch - isn't
any argument about fairness pretty silly after that?
Well, I don't consider taxation to be analogous to mugging (or to
robbing) in any relevant way. While I cannot freely avoid paying
taxes and must do so under the policy that is in place when my
taxes are due, I am free to attempt to get the government to change
its policies through various means.
So, you think it's a good idea to raise taxes in a recessionary
environment?
I think that when it comes to tax policy, general questions such as
this one and the claims they engender don't get us very far. So I
guess my answer would be "sometimes." Look, at any one time the tax
rates are X, and everyone thinks that any change to X will result
in their particular theory kicking in. I am skeptical that this is
the case. What is much more likely is that the general tenets of
people's beliefs about taxation are true of extreme changes to the
tax code, and that within the range of likely policies the effects
are not likely to be significant, except on things that the tax
code is really designed to change (the revenue of the government,
for instance). Conservatives realize this and that is why they
peddle the lie that revenue goes up when taxes go down.
Also, the effect of the tax code on the economy is not the only
issue at stake in determining tax policy. Other issues include a
fair spreading of the burden of funding government activity (I
think we could probably agree that at least some of the federal
government should be funded) and simplicity of the tax code.
How are Obama's tax credits, with no decrease in spending,
sustainable?
Well, there are going to be tax increases on the wealthy. And by
sustainable I assume you mean in a budget sense. But tax cuts on
the wealthy also are not sustainable in a budget sense as the
current state of our finances reveals. Someone has to pay those
bills. It will be the rich this time around.
I am betting the tax credits are the first thing they push
back, since the math just doesn't work without massive cuts
somewhere (the military) and that can't happen with Obama's pending
War with Pakistan.
You might be right. But I wasn't talking about what will be, but
only about what should be (on a very specific tax issue).
And excuse me, fairness? If you want to talk fair, how is fair
that you think I should pay more money to government and you
shouldn't?
Who says I think that?? I think that everyone who can should pay
their fair share. As it stands currently, middle class taxpayers,
when all taxes are taken into account, pay a greater proportion of
their income to the government than do the rich. They deserve a tax
cut.
You may find it unfair that persons with more should be asked to
pay more, i.e. that taxation should be proportionate to income. I
do not. Most people agree with me. So why do you find it
unfair?
|11.3.08 @ 10:49AM|#
It is funny, though, that you hear ghetto trash and think
"black folks" whereas I hear it and think "lazy, self-entitled
losers of any race" and yet we're the racists.
Gotcha
Ah, yes, the "you're racist for noticing my racism" dodge. Always
so convincing.
I haven't seen that since some asshole decided that the best
strategy was to play dumb when called on "malt liquor and
rimz."
You got shit. It really doesn't convince anyone when you whip your
head around, bark for ten minutes, then ask "What dog whistle?"
|11.3.08 @ 10:52AM|#
economist | November 3, 2008, 10:44am | #
joe,
I consider some taxation to support a minimal state to be a
necessary evil.
And I consider a higher level of taxation to support a larger state
a necessary evil.
Once again, the question of whether of not someone taking your
money is a theif does not depend on how that theif spends the
money.
economist|11.3.08 @ 10:52AM|#
Neu Mejican 10:41 am,
That's the main reason why we tend to be skeptical of government.
It's hard to prove exactly what benefits people derive. Assuming
that marginal benefits from various services tend to decline at
higher outputs, and it's impossible to make the tax burden
perfectly proportional to benefits derived. However, there tend to
be certain things that most people would be willing to pay for the
benefits of if the benefits and costs were internalized. For
example, I would be willing to pay 10% of my income to have an
effective national defense, local police and courts, as well as the
current gas tax to maintain the infrastructure.
|11.3.08 @ 10:53AM|#
I wish malt liquor would stop getting such a bad rap. Little Kings are not as bad as you remember.
economist|11.3.08 @ 10:54AM|#
joe,
The difference is that you think welfare, entitlements, and a
variety of other programs that benefit specific individuals at the
expense of others are legitimate functions of the state. My view is
that people should only be taxed for things from which they derive
a proportional (or greater) benefit.
|11.3.08 @ 10:54AM|#
joe - you know what? If you want to instantaneously project the
worst notions about people on to someone, that says a whole lot
more about you than it does them.
Oh, and your profanity and nasty attitude are so. overwhelmingly.
dispositive. Keep it up, man, you're looking good out there.
|11.3.08 @ 10:57AM|#
The standard liberal attack line is to snipe at your opponent
when he had zero intent on what you're accusing him of. And no
matter how truthful his denials of the behavior, joe just points to
it as more evidence.
Frankly, when I hear "ghetto trash", I think of Jerry Springer
guests...which last time I checked crossed the broad and beautiful
array of colors in this nation.
But my denials mean nothing...because joe can read minds!
economist|11.3.08 @ 10:58AM|#
joe,
Actually, your mugger example pretty closely approximates an
inverse of our current federal government. That is, of the amount
they take from me (in annual income taxes, not counting Fica), 40%
is used for something that I actually consider a legit benefit to
me while 60% is stuff I would be just as happy without.
economist|11.3.08 @ 10:59AM|#
Angry Optimist,
Let it go. While I believe you, I can see where joe drew his
conclusion. And it's impossible to change joe's conclusions once
they are made.
|11.3.08 @ 10:59AM|#
econmist,
That is, indeed, the difference - at least, on a policy level.
There are certain opinions and beliefs and values that we differ
on, in kind or degree, which are prior to those policy
differences.
TAO,
joe - you know what?
Since you started posting here, you've displayed a great deal of
anger and not the slightest bit of optimism?
If you want to instantaneously project the worst notions about
people on to someone, that says a whole lot more about you than it
does them.
Dude, "ghetto trash." Barack Obama wants to take money from
harworking people and give it to ghetto trash. Yeah, I'm
projecting. I'm making that whole thing up.
economist|11.3.08 @ 11:00AM|#
AO,
Even when rednecks live in the ghetto, for some reason it's not
called the ghetto.
|11.3.08 @ 11:00AM|#
No, it's ok, because I'm not using hoary old racial stereotypes
to refer specifically to black people; I'm using them to refer to
low-income people as a whole, to make them SEEM like black
people.
So it's not racist. You see?
|11.3.08 @ 11:01AM|#
The last month shows that to be an erroneous
hypothesis.
Not really. No one said all investements were good, but when you
dry up the pool of investment capital via taxes, you dry up the
pool for productive investments as well as bad ones.
his plan...increases a systemic problem, by bringing us closer
to the day when a majority of citizens pay little or nothing in
taxes, while cashing government checks of various kinds.
Does it? Is that even possible?
Yes, it does. We get closer all the time, Ethan. The tax burden in
this country is borne overwhelmingly by a small percentage of
citizens, and the percentage of citizens who pay little to no tax
to the federal government grows all the time.
The income tax is almost there. You start refunding people's FICA
taxes, and you've taken a big step toward a broken polity, where a
plurality of voters have no stake in doing anything other than
raising taxes on others and benefits for themselves.
The difference is that you think welfare, entitlements, and a
variety of other programs that benefit specific individuals at the
expense of others are legitimate functions of the state. My view is
that people should only be taxed for things from which they derive
a proportional (or greater) benefit.
This, of course, the correct interpretation of the General Welfare
clause.
Neu Mejican|11.3.08 @ 11:02AM|#
Ethan,
Nicely put.
Economist....
However, there tend to be certain things that most people would
be willing to pay for the benefits of if the benefits and costs
were internalized. For example, I would be willing to pay 10% of my
income to have an effective national defense, local police and
courts, as well as the current gas tax to maintain the
infrastructure.
Okay. It seems that most people are willing to extend the list a
bit beyond the one you propose.
What method is best for reaching a compromise that allows us to
pool our money to provide the benefits of living in a
community?
In other words, since the sense of "fairness" seems to be
intimately tied to taxation, how do we decide what is fair given
that there is no way to objectively measure fairness?
Seems representative democracy with an engaged citizenry is gonna
be imperfect but the most likely to get us there. It will be
important that we have people who see minarchy as the goal involved
in the debate, but there also need to be some who see the potential
benefits of increasing certain services.
To me it is the decision making process that is primary...not the
results. A fair and reasonable process allows for pragmatic goals
to be set and for dynamic solutions to those goals to evolve over
time as part of an ongoing discourse.
|11.3.08 @ 11:03AM|#
Since you started posting here, you've displayed a great
deal of anger and not the slightest bit of optimism?
Pot, meet kettle.
FWIW, I believe in dog-whistles. I just think that you leapt to
that way too fast. Part of it is, is that you're older, so you
don't know how the word "ghetto" has evolved with younger
people.
But the other part is that you're really eager to toss your
standard attack lines on people, probably because it makes you feel
really self-righteous inside to be a "defender of the
'oppressed'".
|11.3.08 @ 11:04AM|#
Ethan,
"All taxes have a negative effect on the eeconomy to the extent
that the government spends the money less efficiently than the
private sector (always).
-you replied
As a religious belief, that is a very powerful claim. As an
empirical notion, it's nonsense..."
My 'always' referred to the entire statement - it's always true
that less efficient spending is a net negative economically. It
didn't mean that all government services could be provided more
efficiently by the private sector.
I recognize that some services are better of in the public domain -
but would prefer to keep those minimal, and provided at the lowest
possible level of government. I am annoyed by wasteful spending in
my town - but I can do something about it - like run for office.
Federal spending on stuff that my (stupid) town government could do
at 1/3 the cost is mostly waste, abuse, and theft.
|11.3.08 @ 11:04AM|#
Ito make them SEEM like black people.
Whoops. There's your problem right there. You have a bad habit of
playing Miss Cleo, you know that?
"ghetto" means different things to this generation, old man. Every
once in a while you should shut your mouth and learn something.
WahooUVA|11.3.08 @ 11:06AM|#
Hart said in a column wryly, "if Obama is President he will stiffle free speech as hate speech and he (Hart) will be an enemy of the state by committing such a crime...he (Hart) said : "and I do not want to committe a crime of being racist..since, as we know, only blacks commit crimes." Smart irony and for those that catch his deep humor, knee slapping funny while making his point.
Neu Mejican|11.3.08 @ 11:07AM|#
TAO,
"ghetto" means different things to this generation, old man.
Every once in a while you should shut your mouth and learn
something.
You admit that there is a difference in usage and yet you are
giving joe a hard time for interpreting the phrase the way you
would expect his generation to interpret it?
Really?
I think there is quite a bit of false indignation on both sides
here...but that's just me.
economist|11.3.08 @ 11:08AM|#
Well, Neu Mejican, I would suggest adding a house of Congress elected by taxpayers, with each vote being weighted by how much the individual pays. I wouldn't want the other two houses abolished, of course.
|11.3.08 @ 11:09AM|#
Neu,
To me it is the decision making process that is primary...not
the results.
The means do not justify the ends. A bad result from democracy is
just as bad as one resulting from a dictatorship. And democracy
without minority protections is just the tyranny of the mob.
Seward|11.3.08 @ 11:09AM|#
economist,
An important point is that government tends to benefit some
fraction of the population greatly (consider agricultural subsidies
as an example) while harming others an insigificant way (the price
of an item has increased incrementally due to a tarriff). The deal
is that the federal and state governments are chock full of
measures like that and they can be in large part because of the
general nature of what is now expected of the government.
economist|11.3.08 @ 11:10AM|#
Neu,
How dare you suggest that there could be false indignation on "both
sides". It's obvious that joe is absolutely 100% in the right and
AO is completely wrong *sarcasm*.
economist|11.3.08 @ 11:11AM|#
There would, of course, be some difficulty in implementing a taxpayer-house, such as how to count tariffs, but I think the overall idea would at least be an improvement on the current system.
BDB|11.3.08 @ 11:12AM|#
"I would suggest adding a house of Congress elected by
taxpayers, with each vote being weighted by how much the individual
pays"
Wasn't this supposed to be the point of the Senate? To protect the
rich against the mob (whereas the House protects the mob against
the rich)?
|11.3.08 @ 11:12AM|#
NM - I guess I should be more understanding, but the idea that
bigbigslacker was being racist, and was assumed without the
requisite knowledge for what the term means.
"Ghetto trash", in the context I understand it, is a wonderful mix
of "ghetto dwellers" and "white trash"...or, like I said, Jerry
Springer guests.
Neu Mejican|11.3.08 @ 11:13AM|#
economist | November 3, 2008, 11:08am | #
Well, Neu Mejican, I would suggest adding a house of Congress
elected by taxpayers, with each vote being weighted by how much the
individual pays. I wouldn't want the other two houses abolished, of
course.
Sounds like a "House of Lords" to me.
The means do not justify the ends. A bad result from democracy
is just as bad as one resulting from a dictatorship. And democracy
without minority protections is just the tyranny of the
mob.
True enough, means don't justify the ends, but I am talking about
the "fairness" metric. If a fair process is used, the results are
fair, even if piss poor...perhaps?
But, of course, a fair process would include the minority
protections you mention.
Seward|11.3.08 @ 11:14AM|#
economist,
What is interesting about most government redistribution schemes is
that they largely benefit people who are not the economically
downtrodden. That's not particularly surprising of course; the real
poor don't have that much political muscle.
|11.3.08 @ 11:14AM|#
By the way - I think it incredibly revealing that arguments of "tax is theft" and income redistribution inevitable result in racially charged arguments. It why the welfare state works "better" in places like sweden where everyone looks the same - people don't mind the goverment redistributing as much when the recipients are like enough to them to be thought of as family. When it's a neighbooring tribe, on the other hand....
Neu Mejican|11.3.08 @ 11:15AM|#
TAO,
So what is the relationship/ distinguishing usage differences
between...
"White Trash"
"Ghetto Trash"
"Trailer Trash"
"That's so Ghetto."
Are any of them tied to a racial group.
Or is it just classism that motivates their usage?
JMR|11.3.08 @ 11:17AM|#
"John McCain has probably all but signed a deal to become the
next Viagra spokesman."
My thoughts exactly...Happens to all the old "my turn" Republicans
who run impotent campaigns.
|11.3.08 @ 11:20AM|#
well, White Trash is generally tied to white people, but it
doesn't (necessarily) denote a particular class. You can be white
trash and live in a McMansion. Classifying people that way speaks
to the WASP-y tendency to look down your nose at "new money, lack
of manners and sophistication-type people".
Trailer trash, of course, talks about the trailer park. I think
generally this is a term for white people, but I've definitely
heard it used without reference or regard to color (i.e. hurled at
blacks and Hispanics).
Ghetto trash is generally used at poor folks in the urban
centers.
All of them are less racially-charged and more charged with an
accusation of a lack of sophistication.
When someone says "X thing is so ghetto", you might as well assume
they're saying "This car/house/whatever is a piece of shit".
economist|11.3.08 @ 11:23AM|#
Neu Mejican,
Nonsense. The nobility of England did not pay the vast majority of
the taxes.
Seward|11.3.08 @ 11:24AM|#
FYI: I am pretty sure that Ghetto Trash is defined on the Urban Dictionary.
economist|11.3.08 @ 11:25AM|#
Xenu XXV demands an end to the discussion of whether or not "ghetto trash" is a racial slur (see thread on psychological study where I reveal my true identity).
|11.3.08 @ 11:29AM|#
The means do not justify the ends. A bad result from
democracy is just as bad as one resulting from a
dictatorship.
In itself, yes. But it really isn't, since a democracy has built
right in to itself a nonviolent process for resolving the matter.
And thus the importance of process.
Seward|11.3.08 @ 11:31AM|#
ecomonist,
Well, unlike French nobles*, English nobles did pay taxes. What
portion of the tax burdened they shouldered I cannot say, however,
things like land taxes were probably never as important as tariffs
and various taxes on goods.
*Some of these folks did pay taxes, but the general rule was that
they did.
CL Smooth|11.3.08 @ 11:32AM|#
When people are deaf, dumb and blind/
They get left behind/
Imaginin' the ghettos of the mind.
|11.3.08 @ 11:34AM|#
Neu,
Fairness is a slippery concept. In any situation of compromise, a
charge of unfairness can be leveled. But I don't think that a
progressive tax scheme can ever be considered fair. A flat tax is
"fairer" in my mind, but still profoundly "unfair" in the since
that the rich would still pay in massive excess to the benefits
they receive. (Benefits of rule of law may increase for the rich,
but they still must reach a point of paying more than they are
"worth.")
If paying on a progressive scale is going to justified as "They can
afford it" or "They owe the poor for being rich" then it would be
best for advocates of progressive tax structure to abandon the fig
leaf of "fairness" as a argument.
economist|11.3.08 @ 11:37AM|#
Seward, I know the English nobility payed some taxes, however, most taxes were levied on goods and services, which fell predominantly on the commoners.
|11.3.08 @ 11:38AM|#
Ethan,
But it really isn't, since a democracy has built right in to
itself a nonviolent process for resolving the matter. And thus the
importance of process.
It's a good argument if you leave out: And democracy without
minority protections is just the tyranny of the mob.
If 50.000000001% think it's OK to violate your human rights, then
you have no problem with that, right?
economist|11.3.08 @ 11:39AM|#
Ethan,
A lot of times that process doesn't work. And all governments are
backed up, ultimately, by force or by the threat of force.
|11.3.08 @ 11:47AM|#
"ghetto" means different things to this generation, old
man.
No, it means exactly the same thing, but some people are using it
in a less-pejorative manner. When you add "trash" to the phrase,
you do so to put the pejorative back in.
"Ghetto trash", in the context I understand it, is a wonderful
mix of "ghetto dwellers" and "white trash" So, let me get this
strraight:
You admit that "Ghetto trash" means "white trash," except instead
of "white" people, it refers to "ghetto" people, who are different
from "white" people.
"Ghetto trash" is like "white trash" and "trailer trash," except
the part where the last two are about white people, and "ghetto
trash" isn't.
Nope, no racial connotation there.
So, why do you think he picked "ghetto trash" instead of "trailer"
or "white?"
|11.3.08 @ 11:53AM|#
it refers to "ghetto" people, who are different from "white"
people.
No, joe. "Ghetto" is a broader, more inclusive term, not an
exclusive term. Caveat: it's exclusive as to the locality of the
individual, obviously.
why do you think he picked "ghetto trash" instead of "trailer"
or "white?"
Who knows?...oh, except you, of course, because you're the Paladin
of the Oppressed, so you must get your hackles up every time you
feel like getting off.
|11.3.08 @ 11:57AM|#
Wasn't this supposed to be the point of the Senate? To
protect the rich against the mob (whereas the House protects the
mob against the rich)?
No, the point of the Senate, which was appointed by States, was to
protect the States against the federal government.
since a democracy has built right in to itself a nonviolent
process for resolving the matter.
And, of course, any state has built right into itself the mechanism
for resolving differences of opinion via the use or threat of
force. The fact that said force is brought to bear on a minority
with the enthusiastic support of a majority softens the jackboot
not at all.
|11.3.08 @ 12:05PM|#
If 50.000000001% think it's OK to violate your human rights,
then you have no problem with that, right?
I have a problem with that. What gave you the idea that I wouldn't?
Oh yeah, your cartoon-world definition of democracy. The process
you describe isn't our process, or the process of any modern
democracy.
A lot of times that process doesn't work. And all governments
are backed up, ultimately, by force or by the threat of
force.
Yes, the process doesn't always result in the policy you or I want.
But that's why the process is important--it gives you an
alternative to taking up arms. Of course, sometimes the results get
so bad that an uprising is the only alternative (see also Locke,
John). I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that an increase in the
tax rate to 1990s levels for the rich, a tax cut for the middle
class and fully refundable tax credits for all do not justify a
violation of anyone's rights or even an instance of the process
"not working". Rather, the situation would be one where some people
didn't get what they wanted from tax reform. They should, if they
are upset enough, work via the available process to convince others
it is a bad idea. Good luck to them.
|11.3.08 @ 12:06PM|#
Further, only a libertarian would regard progressive
taxation as a redistribution plan.
Progressive taxation + medicare/medicaid + welfare (corporate and
individual + social security + public schooling + public
transportation = weallth distribution.
And if your job doesn't pay well enough, who's fault is that? Is
somebody forcing you to remain in it?
|11.3.08 @ 12:08PM|#
No, joe. "Ghetto" is a broader, more inclusive term, not an
exclusive term.
Riiiiiigggghhhhhhht. Hence, the widespread use of the term in heavy
metal and country music.
Who knows?... Everybody who isn't actively lying to
himself.
|11.3.08 @ 12:08PM|#
And, of course, any state has built right into itself the
mechanism for resolving differences of opinion via the use or
threat of force. The fact that said force is brought to bear on a
minority with the enthusiastic support of a majority softens the
jackboot not at all.
I am not sure the "jackboot" talk is relevant to the current tax
proposals. Iraq, secret prisons, warrantless wiretapping, torture,
the suppression of science for ideological reasons, these are
things for the jackbooted.
|11.3.08 @ 12:08PM|#
Ethan,
You support mob rule when it's your mob doing the ruling. Color me
shocked.
|11.3.08 @ 12:08PM|#
Who knows?...oh, except you, of course, because you're the
Paladin of the Oppressed, so you must get your hackles up every
time you feel like getting off.
Yeah, I get pissed off my race-baiting. Fucking sue me.
|11.3.08 @ 12:11PM|#
Iraq, secret prisons, warrantless wiretapping, torture, the
suppression of science for ideological reasons, these are things
for the jackbooted.
Yes, paid for by the taxes you love so much. Your disconnect would
be fascinating if not so drearily commonplace among liberal
apologists that haunt this board.
hotsauce|11.3.08 @ 12:20PM|#
Once you start qualifying the "taxation is theft" line, its logic collapses.
If a mugger took $100, but spent $60 to fill a pothole in front of your driveway, would only $40 have been theft? How about if it he gave it to a really, really great charity?
Of course not.
100 percent agree with joe. It took me a while to realize this, but
that's when I became an anarchist.
|11.3.08 @ 12:22PM|#
You support mob rule when it's your mob doing the ruling.
Color me shocked.
Nothing I have said even remotely implies that I support mob rule.
I said two things here today, that if we are going to have credits
everyone should be eligible (for reasons I denoted) and that there
is a process for determining the minutiae of the tax code and thus
that if you don't like any of the likely results of tax reform you
have the option of changing them. How this means I support mob rule
you'll have to explain.
Me: [Iraq, secret prisons, warrantless wiretapping, torture, the
suppression of science for ideological reasons, these are things
for the jackbooted.]
Yes, paid for by the taxes you love so much. Your disconnect
would be fascinating if not so drearily commonplace among liberal
apologists that haunt this board.
First of all, I'm not a liberal. Secondly, what on earth is your
point with this post?? Nothing I said implies that I love taxes; in
fact, if you paid attention at all you would have seen that I think
that not long ago taxes were way too high. What is the fact that
taxes paid for all those bad things I listed supposed to imply?
More specifically, what do YOU think it implies? Are you saying
that because I think there should be at least some taxation that I
have to support everything taxes pay for? What are you, an
idiot?
I think that some taxation is necessary. I also think that the
government should not spend tax money (or any money) on secret
prisons or elective wars. Show me the contradiction there.
|11.3.08 @ 12:26PM|#
I personally have posted "ignorant, hillbilly, whackjob
preacher" no less than 50 times at H&R and not once
was I called out by the uber-sensitive joe for it.
ignorant hillbilly - OK.
ghetto trash - racist.
Understand now, TAO?
|11.3.08 @ 12:29PM|#
Paying a tax credit to somebody who doesn't pay taxes is an
oxymoron. It is a transfer payment in that case.
In a world with six billion plus, paying people to have children
they can not afford is flat out immoral.
|11.3.08 @ 12:38PM|#
Ethan,
Are you saying that because I think there should be at least
some taxation that I have to support everything taxes pay
for?
You are the one who has fetishized "fairness" today. And suggested
that anything done by a democratic process is just hunky-dory with
you. A democracy that does not protect the minority from the whims
of the majority is mob rule. You are fine with that sort of
democracy, ergo, have fun with your mob.
You have things you don't want to pay for, I have things I don't
want to pay for. One of us is fine saying that forcing to people to
pay for things they don't agree with just because a bare majority
of people think it's a "good" is a violation of personal
sovereignty, and the other doesn't.
A properly constrained government wouldn't have the money to have
secret prisons or welfare for the able-bodied.
As to your specific taxes question: I love how cutting spending
never even comes up.
|11.3.08 @ 12:42PM|#
Two statements which are not contradictory:
A democratic process provides a fair way of settling
disputes.
and
Minority rights should be protected from the will of the
majority.
The second statement doesn't require you to dismiss the first; it
just serves to restrict the scope of its application.
|11.3.08 @ 12:51PM|#
J sub - I got it now. "Ghetto trash", according to joe, offends
one of his sacred-cow "oppressed groups", whereas ignorant
hillbilly (and I famously
skewered "yokels" for a while there, too) goes after the
Republicans traditional "oppressed victimhood group", so it's
OK.
You're such a hack, joe. Go fake your outrage somewhere else. It's
been explained to you that the term you've got your panties in a
bunch about doesn't mean what you want it to mean, but you insist
on mind-reading for the sake of manufactured holiness.
|11.3.08 @ 12:56PM|#
You are the one who has fetishized "fairness"
today.
Actually, I simply made an argument about what I thought was fair.
How that "fetishizes" fairness you'll have to explain.
And suggested that anything done by a democratic process is
just hunky-dory with you.
Actually I said the opposite. I think that in most cases the
various policy proposals do not leave human rights in the balance,
and so the proper response to a policy you do not like is to work
to change it. To say that if you don't like Obama's tax policies
the only justifiable option is to work within the system to change
it is not to imply that there are no issues where the result of
democracy violates persons' rights. In fact, our democracy has
determined that people have certain rights, and it is harder to
change those rights than it is to change the details of particular
policies. This is as it should be, because mob rule is an ugly
thing.
A democracy that does not protect the minority from the whims
of the majority is mob rule.
Couldn't agree more. Which is why it is so odd that you thought I
believed the opposite.
Like Joe said (it bears repeating so that it may sink into your
skull):
"Two statements which are not contradictory: (1) A democratic
process provides a fair way of settling disputes and (2)and
minority rights should be protected from the will of the
majority."
See? Those two statements provide a large part of the basis of our
current system. It's not so hard to figure out.
Neu Mejican|11.3.08 @ 12:57PM|#
joe,
It's a functional pair.
The majority should be protected from the will of the minority with
power(leads to democracy as a solution).
The minority should be protected from the will of the majority
(leads to constitutional protections).
Can be re-written as "Those with power should be restrained from
abusing those without power."
Abuse, therefore, needs to be defined.
|11.3.08 @ 12:58PM|#
The end should look like this:
A democracy that does not protect the minority from the whims
of the majority is mob rule.
Couldn't agree more. Which is why it is so odd that you thought I
believed the opposite.
Like Joe said (it bears repeating so that it may sink into your
skull):
"Two statements which are not contradictory: (1) A democratic
process provides a fair way of settling disputes and (2)and
minority rights should be protected from the will of the
majority."
See? Those two statements provide a large part of the basis of our
current system. It's not so hard to figure out.
Neu Mejican|11.3.08 @ 1:00PM|#
Ethan,
Of course the conceptual challenge is to see government as a
process with rules rather than a group of people separate from the
society.
|11.3.08 @ 1:01PM|#
"White Trash"
"Ghetto Trash"
"Trailer Trash"
The key word is "trash". Not all people that live in a trailer are
trash. Not all people that live in a ghetto are trash. Not all
white people are trash.
I throw out "trashburger" on occasion too. All low forms of life.
These are the types that need two receipts because they can't put
their smokes on the WIC card. The more people you have met that fit
this description, the less respect you have for them.
Trash with the "gimme" mentality will find Obama's message very
appealing. I find it appealing. It's tempting even for people who
believe in working for everything they have. And there's the real
insult.
But I am a bigot. I have a harsher view of white people that behave
that way. That's the soft bigotry Bush spoke of. I'm guilty.
|11.3.08 @ 1:13PM|#
I said
A democracy that does not protect the minority from the whims of the majority is mob rule.
and joe said:
Two statements which are not contradictory: (1) A democratic process provides a fair way of settling disputes and (2)and minority rights should be protected from the will of the majority.
Ethan,
What a "Gotcha" you played on me! joe stating exactly what I said
as a positive statement rather than a negative one really put me in
my place. Wow, I'm reeling.
That was sarcasm, in case you are having a hard time figuring that
out.
"Those with power should be restrained from abusing those
without power."
Neu gets it right, although we'll quibble over the definition.
Seward|11.3.08 @ 1:15PM|#
joe,
Dude, Urban Dictionary is your friend. I've seen the term applied
to just about every skin color imaginable.
|11.3.08 @ 1:35PM|#
What a "Gotcha" you played on me! joe stating exactly what I
said as a positive statement rather than a negative one really put
me in my place. Wow, I'm reeling.
Again, I can't see what on earth you are on about. I stated that
the democratic process is a good way to nonviolently settle
disputes. You attack me for supporting mob rule and the oppression
of the rights of minorities. I simply pointed out (and Joe pointed
out) that the former does not imply the latter. And yet somehow I
was trying to "put you in your place." All I was doing was
disagreeing with your claim that supporting the democratic process
as a way to settle grievances implies that I support mob rule.
Everything else is in your imagination.
Seward|11.3.08 @ 1:38PM|#
Ethan,
I stated that the democratic process is a good way to
nonviolently settle disputes.
Until it turns violent (as democracies do from time to time).
|11.3.08 @ 1:40PM|#
joe stating exactly what I said as a positive statement
rather than a negative one
Let's ask him. Joe, was your 12:42 post intended as support for
SugarFree's posts here, or not?
|11.3.08 @ 1:50PM|#
Of course the conceptual challenge is to see government as a
process with rules rather than a group of people separate from the
society.
Indeed.
|11.3.08 @ 1:57PM|#
Of course the conceptual challenge is to see government as a
process with rules rather than a group of people separate from the
society.
I think the real challenge is to keep the people ensconced in
government from becoming a separate class. A challenge that we have
failed in the US, IMO.
economist|11.3.08 @ 2:01PM|#
A significant portion of this thread is devoted to a debate on whether "ghetto trash" is a slur against black people. This has led to a cartoonish exchange of semantic arguments that has left me wondering if the people involved are really that obsessed. Let it go.
|11.3.08 @ 2:03PM|#
Go fake your outrage somewhere else.
That's funny, TAO, I thought you'd decided you "touched a
nerve."
I'll keep calling bullshit on this stuff right here, thanks.
Deal.
bigbigslacker,
The key word is "trash". Not all people that live in a trailer
are trash. Not all people that live in a ghetto are trash. Not all
white people are trash.
And yet, the commenter decided to go with "ghetto trash."
Ethan,
The comment you refered to was meant as a rebuttal to what
SugarFree seemed (to me at least) to be arguing - that the
democratic process does not confer legitimacy on a decision or
policy, because the democratic process doesn't protect the rights
of the minority.
|11.3.08 @ 2:08PM|#
hotsauce,
I disagree with your beliefs about taxation, but they are
intellectually honest and logically consistent.
economist|11.3.08 @ 2:17PM|#
joe,
You're using a slippery slope fallacy here. That if I support some
(limited) taxation for limited, logically determined purposes, I
must support all taxation for all purposes. This would be kind of
like telling you that because you support taxation, welfare, and a
variety of government interventions, you should also necessarily be
OK with the government confiscating all wealth and redistributing
it evenly, in other words, that you must necessarily be a
communist. Some here have used it to attack your positions, and
you've pointed out (correctly) that your position is not communism.
But don't go and use the same line of reasoning to claim that I'm
being logically inconsistent and dishonest if I take a position
that disagrees with yours somewhat, but doesn't go to a particular
extreme (in this case, anarchism).
economist|11.3.08 @ 2:19PM|#
Or, to sum up, if you're going to claim that you are being logically consistent and honest in being a liberal but not a communist, I can claim that I'm being logically consistent and honest in being a libertarian but not an anarchist.
|11.3.08 @ 2:31PM|#
And yet, the commenter decided to go with "ghetto
trash."
"White trash" and "trailer trash" aren't very inclusive. The vermin
that wants it all for free are better described as "ghetto trash".
If I meant "porch monkeys", then that's what I would have
wrote.
|11.3.08 @ 2:37PM|#
Why is it that returning tax rates on the rich to a little
bit higher than they were in the 1990s (and to nowhere near as high
as they were before Reagan came along) is going to have a negative
effect on the economy and jobs?
Because if you raise the top marginal tax rate, then people who are
capable of earning income at that rate will have a bigger incentive
to spend more time with their families, take vacations, etc. while
being less economically productive -- which at the margins hurts
the economy and job creation.
If you tax something more, you get less of it.
Neu Mejican|11.3.08 @ 2:45PM|#
prolefeed,
If you tax something more, you get less of it.
Which is why I feel like discussions of meaningful tax reform
should be centered around replacing the income tax (including
payroll taxes) with a tax on material throughput.
We currently tax labor. This encourages us to find ways to get
things done with less labor.
If we taxed material throughput (think carbon tax), we would find
ways to get things done with less material throughput.
That's the thumbnail.
Better details available here.
http://www.natcap.org/sitepages/pid20.php
economist|11.3.08 @ 2:53PM|#
Neu Mejican,
I would be interested in your proposed tax shift, provided it was
revenue neutral.
Neu Mejican|11.3.08 @ 3:03PM|#
economist...
Follow the link for the details.
I don't believe it is fair to describe it as revenue neutral as it
could easily result in a lower tax burden overall.
It would be wise to implement it in a way that it is at least
revenue neutral to start with.
|11.3.08 @ 3:16PM|#
You have things you don't want to pay for, I have things I
don't want to pay for. One of us is fine saying that forcing to
people to pay for things they don't agree with just because a bare
majority of people think it's a "good" is a violation of personal
sovereignty, and the other doesn't.
Actually, we both are, with respect to some things. For everything
the government funds, there is someone out there who opposes it.
Thus, there is someone out there who opposes what YOU believe to be
an appropriate use of government funds (let me venture a guess: a
large military). Thus you are okay with people paying taxes for
things they don't believe in at least in some cases. "No one should
be taxed to fund things they don't believe in" is simply not a
feasible public policy.
A properly constrained government wouldn't have the money to
have secret prisons or welfare for the able-bodied.
A side question: if you had to end secret prisons or welfare for
the able-bodied, which would it be?
As to your specific taxes question: I love how cutting spending
never even comes up.
I think spending should be cut in many areas. There, now all that
leaves for you to do is to find whomever it is your comment was
directed towards.
By the way, I asked Joe about his "two statements" post. In case
you missed it, here's what he said: "Ethan, the comment you refered
to was meant as a rebuttal to what SugarFree
seemed (to me at least) to be arguing - that the democratic process
does not confer legitimacy on a decision or policy, because the
democratic process doesn't protect the rights of the
minority."
|11.3.08 @ 3:33PM|#
That's funny, TAO, I thought you'd decided you "touched a
nerve."
Wrong thread.
And yet, the commenter decided to go with "ghetto
trash."
bigbigslacker is "the commenter" you smeared without asking, joe.
And here he is explaining it to you and you still think he's some
kind of racist.
Do you pay attention at all?
|11.3.08 @ 3:43PM|#
Would this settle the dispute: type "ghetto trash" into Google Images and see if any white people show up in the results?
Neu Mejican|11.3.08 @ 3:50PM|#
Ethan,
I don't think that would be a valid way to go.
The images are not tagged based on the image content, per se.
You would be better with a search for the text and an analysis of
topic and related terms.
|11.3.08 @ 5:52PM|#
Neu,
...[I]t could easily result in a lower tax burden overall.
If tax burdens--and therefore, tax revenues--go down, then wouldn't
spending also have to go down? I'm not confident that it would
happen--would the government tie its hands lilke that? More likely,
higher taxes elsewhere, or more borrowing would ensue.
Neu Mejican|11.3.08 @ 6:14PM|#
Yerbaff,
If tax burdens--and therefore, tax revenues--go down, then
wouldn't spending also have to go down?
Ask GW Bush.
Seriously though, read the link for details.
Neu Mejican|11.3.08 @ 6:20PM|#
Yerbaff,
Didn't mean that to be too flip.
But the scheme could have the effect of reducing the revenue to
government, putting downward pressure on expansion/spending.
The simplicity of the taxation system would reduce costs on
collecting taxes, giving more bang for your tax buck since
enforcement is easier.
Some people have worked to figure out the details.
e.g., http://www.carbontax.org/
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245