"Progressives need to stop worrying and learn to love taxes"

Matt Welch | June 18, 2009

That's the subhed on an American Prospect essay by Matthew Yglesias of the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank with close ties to the Obama administration. From the opening paragraph:

In most developed democracies, taxation is a necessary evil that finances the services that make for a fair and dynamic society. Taxes let people take risks with their lives, guarantee a financially secure retirement, educate children, keep our roads drivable, pay police, and help ensure that the benefits of prosperity are broadly shared. But starting in the late 1970s, political entrepreneurs on the right helped launch a broad "tax revolt" that completely changed the public's view of taxation.

Don't recall seeing the taxes=dynamism argument before, let alone the concept that they "let people take risks with their lives," though I suppose one could argue that they have enabled CEOs and money managers to take enormous risks with their too-big-to-fail companies....

Wittingly or no, Yglesias then gives us even more reason to fear Obama's massive budget deficits:

For the moment, that's all for the best. The administration argued, correctly, that its proposed increases in spending are vital to transforming the country's health, energy, and education sectors. The mere fact that the 2010 budget document implies unduly large deficits in 2014 or 2017 is not a problem in 2009 when the bleak macroeconomic outlook calls for large short-term deficits. The moderates were not off base in their concerns about long-term deficits. But, having drawn attention to a real problem, they were unwilling to face the only realistic solution: higher taxes. [...]

The United States already does about as much as any other country to curb inequality through the tax code. Where we fall short is in fighting inequality through government spending -- we just don't spend very much. If you care about inequality, in other words, the thing to focus on is not soaking the rich through the tax code but rather ensuring that there's enough tax revenue to finance generous public services. Broad social-insurance schemes like Social Security and unemployment insurance, as well as government operations more generally, are strongly progressive in their impact.

Do increased "government operations" actually lead to those "generous public services," let alone positive outcomes in the broader economy? If so, I'm still waiting to see a shred of evidence cited in the progressive wonderland of California.

I debated Yglesias on Bloggingheads back in March.

Comments

Warty|6.18.09 @ 10:49AM|#

Taxes give us kittens and popsicles. They tuck us in at night and rock us to sleep when there's a thunderstorm. I love taxes.

|6.18.09 @ 10:54AM|#

"The United States already does about as much as any other country to curb inequality through the tax code. Where we fall short is in fighting inequality through government spending -- we just don't spend very much. "

We are running a trillion dollar deficit. The government spends over 20% of GDP. Is Yglasias retarded?

Xeones|6.18.09 @ 10:55AM|#

Shut the fuck up, Matthew Yglesias, you fucking shitcock. Shut the fuck up and DIE.

Warty|6.18.09 @ 10:56AM|#

Do you need to ask, John?

Dave W.|6.18.09 @ 11:00AM|#

** NEWS FLASH **:

Pepsi releases cane cola:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5mM7EGR1oI

A belated, but still welcome, triumph of the oligopolistic competition that Reason and its loyals HitnRunners crave.

If Mr. Sullum or Mr. Bailey or whoever is doing food beat now wants to do a post about this above the fold, it would be appreciated if you could link my band, the mighty Fares Wanna Mo (www.farceswannamo.com) in the hat tip.

We now return you to whatever it is you guys discuss around here now in the post-T. era.

spambot|6.18.09 @ 11:00AM|#

Taxes pay for wars that Democrats claim to hate and then forget about when their man is elected.

Chad|6.18.09 @ 11:09AM|#

John | June 18, 2009, 10:54am | #
"The United States already does about as much as any other country to curb inequality through the tax code. Where we fall short is in fighting inequality through government spending -- we just don't spend very much. "

We are running a trillion dollar deficit. The government spends over 20% of GDP. Is Yglasias retarded?


Apparently, you don't understand that 20% of GDP is a very low figure.

http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2008/03/government-spending-as-percentage-of.html

We fall right between Chad and Cameroon in national government spending. Note that most of the places any rational person would chose to live are NOT near the bottom of the list (Afghanistan is).

Also please note the number of places with solid economies much, much further up the list than the US.

|6.18.09 @ 11:11AM|#

Taxes give us kittens and popsicles. They tuck us in at night and rock us to sleep when there's a thunderstorm. I love taxes.

Ah, well put, Warty.

creech|6.18.09 @ 11:18AM|#

No, Yglesias isn't retarded; he's a coward. If he really believes that one's life belongs to another entity - in this case, the government -then he needs to stop advocating half-way measures to end inequality. Go full out and implement his belief: take enough taxes and spend enough money to level the playing field.
I'm tired of these socialist cowards refusing to acknowledge what they really want and backing small incremental measures that lead to more bitching about problems not really being solved and keep requiring another incremental measure. You want socialism, you get socialism. None of this semi-slavery crap.

|6.18.09 @ 11:19AM|#

Don't recall seeing the taxes=dynamism argument before, let alone the concept that they "let people take risks with their lives,"

It's more an argument that taxes pay for things that enable positive liberties.

It's an argument that taxes pay for a social safety net that allows people to take chances. (Ignoring partially the possibility of private insurance.) That public health care would mean that people could switch jobs or start businesses without worrying about losing their health cares, hence dynamism. That Social Security and welfare means not having to be dependent on your children or your parents (and their approval) like you would without them.

I know that you don't hold much hope for the liberaltarian project, Matt, but comments and arguments like that are pretty common among both the liberals wooing libertarians and some of the libertarians sympathetic to their project who think that most libertarians are too concerned with taxes (including, at times, Bruce Bartlett.)

Considering that both posts I've linked on liberaltarianism are by you, Matt, I'm surprised that you haven't heard the idea before. Will Wilkinson has discussed it somewhat positively before too, as he has a greater appreciation for positive liberty than he used to.

NB: I disagree with the argument. But I have heard it.

|6.18.09 @ 11:26AM|#

Indeed, one can say that acceptance of this argument (more broadly, the argument that positive liberties are as important or nearly so as negative liberties, and not in a different category) is the argument that distinguishes a modern liberal from a classical liberal or libertarian.

Mike M.|6.18.09 @ 11:26AM|#

For the best current examples of what the Yglesias mentality leads to, just look to California and Detroit (places that people can't possibly leave fast enough).

|6.18.09 @ 11:31AM|#

"It's an argument that taxes pay for a social safety net that allows people to take chances. (Ignoring partially the possibility of private insurance.) That public health care would mean that people could switch jobs or start businesses without worrying about losing their health cares, hence dynamism. That Social Security and welfare means not having to be dependent on your children or your parents (and their approval) like you would without them."

I guess those things come free from the good idea fairy? Funding all of that requires punitive taxes that create a disinsentive to work. It is really hard to start a business. You have to work your ass of and even then most of the time it fails. Why should you do that if you won't be allowed to keep the money you make and you will end up with the same healthcare and standard of living as the guy next door who works 10-5 and smokes dope every night?

The liberaltarian project will always fail. Modern liberalism is diametriclly opposed to economic freedom. You might as well talk about the Libertotalitarian project. It makes about as much sense.

Matt Welch|6.18.09 @ 11:34AM|#

John Thacker -- Thanks. I guess I'm much more familiar with (and even sporadically sympathetic to) the "positive liberties" phrasing & ideas behind it than the far more bold claim of "dynamism."

Brian|6.18.09 @ 11:39AM|#

@Chad

Please also note that most of the places near the top of the list are not places that any rational person would choose to live.

|6.18.09 @ 11:43AM|#

Because economic freedom and having a low tax burden are not the same thing. If you really cared about economic liberty being as widespread as possible you'd be in favor of progressive taxation and social safety nets.

But you guys aren't into that kind of liberty but exclusively with the liberty to keep and spend the money you already have (which of course ignores all those people who don't have it).

|6.18.09 @ 11:45AM|#

Also that figure Chad linked to does not include state and local spending. Yeah, the feds spend like 20% but the state and locals spend about 15 more. So the real figure is around 35%.

|6.18.09 @ 11:46AM|#

"Because economic freedom and having a low tax burden are not the same thing. If you really cared about economic liberty being as widespread as possible you'd be in favor of progressive taxation and social safety nets."

Yes because having the government take my money thus making most things unaffordable provides so much economic liberty.

cartMoses|6.18.09 @ 11:47AM|#

"We fall right between Chad and Cameroon in national government spending. Note that most of the places any rational person would chose to live are NOT near the bottom of the list (Afghanistan is)."

Your link indicates that there's no relationship between gov't spending and wealth.

Mike M.|6.18.09 @ 11:49AM|#

"Economic freedom" means living in Detroit and not being able to sell a home to somebody for less money than it costs to buy a used car.

|6.18.09 @ 11:50AM|#

No Tony, we're into the kind of liberty that gives a person the OPPORTUNITY to achieve their dreams. Not one that hinders some from getting what they want in order to prop up someone that didn't do the work.

Everyone has the opportunity to work hard, educate themselves, and pursue their dreams. There's no guarantee that everyone will succeed. And no amount of spending can EVER guarantee that.

|6.18.09 @ 11:51AM|#

Chad only gets his number by cherry-picking data to exclude state-level spending. If you look at total government outlays, we are just under the Euro social democracies, and closing in fast.

It's more an argument that taxes pay for things that enable positive liberties.

Of course, the whole "positive liberties" argument is fraudulent, at best a zero sum game, and more likely heavily loaded with opportunity costs.

A positive liberty can be assured by the State only at the cost of someone else's negative liberties/right to be left alone. All that money funding positive liberties via the social safety net? Taken from someone else by threat of force.

This results in a net/global gain for freedom? I don't see it, and I think the proponents of positive liberty liberaltarianism are blissfully ignorant of the price exacted on innocent third parties for their subsidized positive liberties.

|6.18.09 @ 12:00PM|#

"the guy next door who works 10-5 and smokes dope every night?"

Fuck your shilling for Big Reality, John.

|6.18.09 @ 12:01PM|#

R C Dean,

What about our system implies that we have the right to be left alone? Sure we have guarantees to privacy in our persons, homes, effects, and papers (lacking due process), but we still are required by our system to be participants in governing ourselves, whether it's obeying laws, participating in a census, or paying taxes. None of these things you have a right to avoid, not even because you're an autonomous human being. As libertarian as our country was meant to be, that never meant that citizens have the right not to participate in it.

|6.18.09 @ 12:04PM|#

"As libertarian as our country was meant to be, that never meant that citizens have the right not to participate in it."


No linky, no chatty, Tony. No linky, no chatty.

The Angry Optimist|6.18.09 @ 12:05PM|#

you guys really aren't going to engage Tony on his "how can a man truly be free if he has an empty stomach?" claptrap nonsense, are you?

Tony does not understand that said empty stomach is not the responsibility of third parties who had absolutely nothing to do with the stomach being empty.

A *true* liberal would realize that fobbing social responsibility off onto the government leads to class warfare and resentment for the truly needy.

Chad|6.18.09 @ 12:07PM|#

cartMoses | June 18, 2009, 11:47am | #

Your link indicates that there's no relationship between gov't spending and wealth.

Agreed. There isn't much of any relationship. So no, raising our net (federal, state and local) tax burden from ~35% to ~40% so that we can pay our bills will not collapse our economy.

|6.18.09 @ 12:12PM|#

As libertarian as our country was meant to be, that never meant that citizens have the right not to participate in it.

Where do you get that, Tony? Where does it say I have to vote, I have to serve on the PTA, I have to this or that or anything else in order to be citizen of the US?

I suspect, however, that the only "participation" you are interested in is forcing me to turn over the fruits of my labors.

|6.18.09 @ 12:14PM|#

Don't you love how Chad's instinctive response to the observation that there is no relationship between government spending and wealth is to raise taxes, rather than reduce them.

Its like a mental illness, that refuses to see any value in anything that doesn't have State Approved tattooed on its forehead.

|6.18.09 @ 12:16PM|#

TAO,

Maybe in the post-Reagan, Greed is Good universe would social insurance policies cause class resentment, but that sort of thing (where the privileged resent the needy) is more a product of propaganda than a natural state of things.

The Angry Optimist|6.18.09 @ 12:18PM|#

Ah, I see, people who don't like forced-charity are suffering from false consciousness, caused by that dastardly Reagan and Ayn Rand.

What nonsense! That's a completely nonfalsifiable premise. If anybody tells you "I'm glad to voluntarily help. It's the forced giving that bothers me", you just say "That's what they've conditioned you to think." you're a piece of work.

|6.18.09 @ 12:20PM|#

R C Dean,

I listed three things you're required to participate in: obeying laws, paying taxes, and participating in the census, among many other things. And it's not a liberal conspiracy, it's in the constitution. It's amazing how libertarians treat what is truly a radical quasi-anarchism as self-evident common sense.

The adolescent "just leave me alone mom GOD!" attitude is not something that makes a functioning society. Liberals appreciate that people and their individual choices are all connected in some ways.

The Angry Optimist|6.18.09 @ 12:21PM|#

I just want everyone to make sure they got that. Tony basically just said that all of libertarianism is false consciousness, caused by insidious forces who have brainwashed us into believing their propaganda.

|6.18.09 @ 12:21PM|#

"Maybe in the post-Reagan, Greed is Good universe would social insurance policies cause class resentment, but that sort of thing (where the privileged resent the needy) is more a product of propaganda than a natural state of things."

Fine Tony. I am going to quit my job and come live on your couch, smoke dope and watch aqua teen hunger force all day and also loot your bank account. If you have a problem with it, it must be because you are the priveleged resenting the needy. It may not be polite to say, but some people are needy because they want to be or refuse to work. I don't blame the guy who smokes dope and choses not to work. I wish I could do the same. I am just not paying to support his choices.

|6.18.09 @ 12:22PM|#

TAO, I think a lot of folks here agree with Dennis Miller when he said, "I love helping the helpless, but I am tired of helping the clueless."

Mike M.|6.18.09 @ 12:24PM|#

Don't you love how Chad's instinctive response to the observation that there is no relationship between government spending and wealth is to raise taxes, rather than reduce them.

Its like a mental illness, that refuses to see any value in anything that doesn't have State Approved tattooed on its forehead.

It's critical to remember that these lefty shitheads aren't paying their own taxes now, so it costs them nothing to levy more on everyone else. He's nothing but a loser who can't earn more and thus needs to take more of what we have.

|6.18.09 @ 12:24PM|#

Because economic freedom and having a low tax burden are not the same thing. If you really cared about economic liberty being as widespread as possible you'd be in favor of progressive taxation and social safety nets.

But you guys aren't into that kind of liberty but exclusively with the liberty to keep and spend the money you already have (which of course ignores all those people who don't have it).

You read it here. Tony's on board with killing social security and abolishing sin taxes. Income tax is already heavily prigressive so we'll leave that one alone.

He's coming around.

|6.18.09 @ 12:25PM|#

TAO,

You used the propaganda term "class warfare," which is NEVER defined as warfare on the poor by the rich. I'm fine with you being an anarchist, but I'm not fine with you being a hypocrite and lapping up the standard GOP/Norquist bullshit that welfare is only bad when it's for the poor. The level of welfare given to the wealthy in the last couple decades makes social insurance programs look like spare change tossed in a guitar case.

|6.18.09 @ 12:25PM|#

"you guys really aren't going to engage Tony"

I'm certainly not.

The Angry Optimist|6.18.09 @ 12:28PM|#

Now, apparently, I am just fine with corporate welfare. I'm not sure where I said that, so I can only assume that Tony, having real consciousness, divined it from my Ayn-Rand lovin' propoganda-bleached brain.

|6.18.09 @ 12:29PM|#

'You used the propaganda term "class warfare," which is NEVER defined as warfare on the poor by the rich."

I can think of a few examples of that. How about cap and trade? That is where poor people get their heating and gasoline bills doubled so scientificlly illiterate rich people can feel good about themselves.

|6.18.09 @ 12:30PM|#

I assume you're in principle against it, but since you never talk about it and only talk about the right-wing bogeyman of the lazy poor person (who obviously chose to be poor) I can only assume you're a victim of propaganda. Because nothing you say has any connection to reality, only to tired 80s-era GOP plutocracy-enabling talking points.

|6.18.09 @ 12:33PM|#

Yeah Tony and everyone who owns a business or makes a good living is just lucky. It has nothing to do with work or sacrifice. Just pure luck that they are not out on the streets.

The Angry Optimist|6.18.09 @ 12:34PM|#

Gee, Tony, I don't even know why you're arguing with me, then. I'm just a po' widdle victim of propaganda. It's not my fault I think the way I do. I'm a victim...GIMME GIMME GIMME!

but since you never talk about it and only talk about the right-wing bogeyman of the lazy poor person

[citation needed]

|6.18.09 @ 12:36PM|#

"I listed three things you're required to participate in: obeying laws, paying taxes, and participating in the census, among many other things. And it's not a liberal conspiracy, it's in the constitution."

[citation needed]

No linky, no chatty, Tony. No linky, no chatty.

|6.18.09 @ 12:39PM|#

"I am going to quit my job and come live on your couch, smoke dope and watch aqua teen hunger force all day and also loot your bank account."

I'm serious John. Your implications that weed makes on unproductive are getting old.

|6.18.09 @ 12:41PM|#

"I'm fine with you being an anarchist"

As long as you're not alone at the time...

|6.18.09 @ 12:43PM|#

"The level of welfare given to the wealthy in the last couple decades makes social insurance programs look like spare change tossed in a guitar case."

[Citation needed]

No linky, no chatty, Tony. No linky, no chatty.

|6.18.09 @ 12:44PM|#

"I assume"

ass / u / me

No linky, no chatty, Tony. No linky, no chatty.

|6.18.09 @ 12:48PM|#

Well, Tony is officially a lost cause. Now that he has resorted to the "propaganda" defense, there is no amount of logic or common sense that will get him to see the foolishness of his position. Anything that challenges his opinions will now be branded as propaganda and he'll be able to blissfully avoid any semblance of critical thought.

I had hope for you Tony. Now I realize that you were just waiting for a defense like this to come to your attention. Now you can spout your idiotic drivel from you sanctimonious perch and pretend we're the dumb ones. Bravo.

The Angry Optimist|6.18.09 @ 12:55PM|#

Tony's "fall", while tragic, was inevitable. You can only argue for so long that people are 'glad' to bail out banks and subsidize certain lifestyle choices, because someone is going to come along and say "I'm not glad".

|6.18.09 @ 1:02PM|#

I am glad that I read the comments, now I know all people that are unemployed are either lazy or smoke dope. So fear the lazy poor people and pot smokers, they will get you!
Do not fear privileged people who have wealth handed down to them, because this obviously happens because they work so hard.
I wonder if they lazy unemployed would be perceived differently if they were handed a trust fund from daddy.

|6.18.09 @ 1:02PM|#

"I'm serious John. Your implications that weed makes on unproductive are getting old."


Fine, then make it drink booze every day. The point is that someone who doesn't work and engages in recreational activity, be it smoking dope, drinking or playing golf, has no right to other people's money to support his habbits.

proud libitard|6.18.09 @ 1:04PM|#

But you guys aren't into that kind of liberty but exclusively with the liberty to keep and spend the money you already have (which of course ignores all those people who don't have it).

No, shit...Heaven help us for wanting to keep OUR money. That's so small-minded. Please help us see the error of our ways!

|6.18.09 @ 1:04PM|#

"I wonder if they lazy unemployed would be perceived differently if they were handed a trust fund from daddy."


Yes they would be in some ways. Paris Hilton is trailor trash. But she does it on someone else's dime, so I really don't care.

Further, you make the very mistake you accuse others of making. What makes you think tax payers are trust fund babies? Do you really think the world is made up of only trust fund babies and poor oppressed unemployed living like turn of the century coal miner? No, dumb ass, most people don't have a trust fund and have to work their asses off in jobs they can't stand only to have statist assholes like you and Tony come along and tell them to cough up what little they earn because to do otherwise just wouldn't be fair.

|6.18.09 @ 1:05PM|#

Tony

Tony's violent ways aren't explained, there are no flashbacks or insinuations of an unhappy childhood, he's simply insane enough to have convinced himself that he's different, and it works perfectly. My favourite scene and one of the most chilling has Tony staring at himself in the bathroom mirror. He says, "You're not a criminal, you're a soldier, you're gonna die like a soldier." A brief pause indicates a shift in tone and he looks back at himself, "You're no soldier, you're a fly on a pile of shit." He then lets out a guttural roar...

Granite26|6.18.09 @ 1:10PM|#

In all fairness, 'let people take risks with their lives' is equivilent with 'isolate people from the worst consequenses of the risks they take', which is pretty much part of the welfare safety net.

Whether it's a sufficient positive externality to justify the welfare state is another question. (It's possible for it to be a social good that more people decide to try starting a business without worrying about starving if it fails)

Sam Grove|6.18.09 @ 1:14PM|#

When my brother was in college acquiring the socialist meme, he got the idea of using government welfare to buy a pound of mj and starting a profitable business with it.

When he eventually landed a job, he was surprised how much taxes took out of his paycheck.

|6.18.09 @ 1:16PM|#

In all fairness Granite26, that's absurd. They are in no way equivalent. Letting people take risks with their lives implies that there might be failure. "Isolating people from the worst consequences" is trying to remove the failure aspect.

How do those come close to being equivalent?

|6.18.09 @ 1:16PM|#

"I am glad that I read the comments, now I know all people that are unemployed are either lazy or smoke dope."

They don't all smoke weed, but all are lazy.

Anyone can get a job in this country, including -- and I say this with great respect -- John's sister, who I think it's safe to say, isn't lazy..

The Angry Optimist|6.18.09 @ 1:17PM|#

I know I've been a dick to John (and will be again), but +1 for this:

Do you really think the world is made up of only trust fund babies and poor oppressed unemployed living like turn of the century coal miner?

yes, they really do believe that. Every poor person is a John Steinbeck character and every wealthy person is Snidley Whiplash. No one ever earned anything unless they did it by lying, cheating, stealing and oppressing.

|6.18.09 @ 1:19PM|#

"No one ever earned anything unless they did it by lying, cheating, stealing and oppressing."

I think that is why so many people in Hollywood are so liberal. Lying cheating and stealing is how they got ahead so they assume it must be how everyone else did to.

Sonya Sotomayor|6.18.09 @ 1:20PM|#

"No one ever earned anything unless they did it by lying, cheating, stealing and oppressing."

Shhhhh.....

The Angry Optimist|6.18.09 @ 1:20PM|#

Silentz - I kind of got what he was saying. It may be that you have some brilliant genius out there who has a brilliant-genius-invention that would revolutionize something, and he's willing to really gamble on that something, but he cannot because the loss he could experience would lead to his utter homelessness and devastation.

Ergo, if society removed that risk (provided a safety net), it could be argued that we would now have Invention X, which is totally a good thing.

I'm not endorsing that, but there is logic there.

|6.18.09 @ 1:21PM|#

Taxes let people take risks with their lives

Holy fuck, what has this guy been smoking?

------

Some fucking dimwit (from PIMCO, I believe) was on CNBC this morning, saying, "My taxes should be higher!"

Nobody asked him if he had availed himself of the opportunity to just send a big fat check to Treasury on his own ultraprogressive initiative.

Goddammit, those people piss me off.

|6.18.09 @ 1:23PM|#

John, what a dumbass comment. I never said people who pay taxes are all trust fund babies, so I am not sure if you just like to make things up to get yourself fired up, or if you have reading comprehension problems. I never mentioned people who work hard and are actually over taxed. My point is that not all people who are unemployed are lazy and that not all wealthy people work hard for what they have. You proved my point with your Paris comment, because if her family did not have money, she would be considered white trash and our taxes would be supporting her.

Chad|6.18.09 @ 1:24PM|#

proud libitard | June 18, 2009, 1:04pm | #

No, shit...Heaven help us for wanting to keep OUR money. That's so small-minded. Please help us see the error of our ways!

What makes it "your" money? Without the benefits of government and society, you would be earning far less than you currently do. Think about it this way. If you were to die tomorrow, you can be rest assured that someone would fill in whatever economic niche you have found yourself, and things would go on as always. It is the system that is generating the wealth, not you as an individual.

|6.18.09 @ 1:27PM|#

TAO, you're right, but the cases that would play out like that would be very few and far between. In your average, everyday American life, there's no correlation.

Plus, the difference is that the people that are willing to take a risk like that would probably use welfare as it should be used. As a temporary 'safety net' that would them to get back on their feet to try again, not as a means to make a living.

Gilbert Martin|6.18.09 @ 1:27PM|#

"The level of welfare given to the wealthy in the last couple decades makes social insurance programs look like spare change tossed in a guitar case."

Prove it.

|6.18.09 @ 1:28PM|#

"My point is that not all people who are unemployed are lazy"

Yes, they are.

Chad|6.18.09 @ 1:29PM|#

P Brooks | June 18, 2009, 1:21pm | #

Goddammit, those people piss me off.

Strange, we get pissed off at greedy people like you. I can't believe how much you all whine like stuck pigs over all the "freedom" you would lose if you had to pay an extra $2000 per year in taxes.

Dear God, you might have to skip Starbucks this week so that we don't have to kick the poor out of the hospitals. What an attrocity! And don't even THINK about giving up a penny so that we can protect a threatened turtle species and motorists outside Tallahassee. I mean, that penny is FREEDOM BABY YEAH!

|6.18.09 @ 1:29PM|#

"You proved my point with your Paris comment, because if her family did not have money, she would be considered white trash and our taxes would be supporting her."

She's a miilionaire in her own right. TV pays well. And if you think she's lazy, you're not thinking.

|6.18.09 @ 1:30PM|#

"What makes it "your" money? Without the benefits of government and society, you would be earning far less than you currently do."

[citation needed]

You and tony suck, btw.

|6.18.09 @ 1:30PM|#

Yeah Tony and everyone who owns a business or makes a good living is just lucky. It has nothing to do with work or sacrifice

And everyone wealthy is a product of hard work and smart decisions. There are no trust fund babies, nope, none. The Paris Hilton's, all those kids on the Hills/Laguna Beach/etc...all products of hard work and good decision making.

Hey the caricature game is fun!

|6.18.09 @ 1:31PM|#

"Prove it."

In Tony's world, that's YOUR job.

The Angry Optimist|6.18.09 @ 1:32PM|#

ha ha, Chad. Good, that means we can all die and there will still be wealth somehow generating itself! Because of the magical 'system'!

Of course, I agree on the limited point that the rule of law, stability provided by the courts and a classically-liberal outlook in that system are what provide the opportunities to create more wealth, but conflating those public goods with a system of transfer payments is, and I'm talking to you, Chad, retarded.

What makes it "your" money?

If it isn't his, whose is it?

|6.18.09 @ 1:32PM|#

"Dear God, you might have to skip Starbucks this week so that we don't have to kick the poor out of the hospitals."

You pay $38 for a latte? That's stupid.

|6.18.09 @ 1:35PM|#

"And everyone wealthy is a product of hard work and smart decisions. There are no trust fund babies, nope, none. The Paris Hilton's, all those kids on the Hills/Laguna Beach/etc...all products of hard work and good decision making."

The Paris Hiltons of the world are the exceptions not the rule. Further, why is Paris Hilton wealthy? Because her grandfather worked his ass off and built a hotel empire. But for every Paris Hilton there are a million small business people and mid level managers and sales people who work their asses off to get what little they have. Only to be told by people like you that they should have to pay confiscatory tax rates because it is unfair that they enjoy any extra benefit from their work.

The crime of people like you Tom is that you talk about Paris Hilton knowing all the while that the people you really want to rob from is everyone else.

|6.18.09 @ 1:35PM|#

Taxes let people take risks with their lives

Holy fuck, what has this guy been smoking?

Oh come one.

Are you trying to say that social safety nets don't allow people to take more risks? And since social safety nets have to be paid for by taxes -- i have to ask what is that you have been smoking that you think that statement is false.

Gilbert Martin|6.18.09 @ 1:35PM|#

"What makes it "your" money? Without the benefits of government and society, you would be earning far less than you currently do."

You are incapable of proving that any alleged "benefit of government and society" had anything whatosever to do with causing any of the income differentials that exists between people in the country.

|6.18.09 @ 1:36PM|#

Palin, your stupidity makes my head hurt.
So, I got laid off from my job this past Friday after 8 years of service "due to the economy" as I was told. So for the last 8 years, I was a good, hard working taxpayer.....now 5 days later, I am just a lazy person. I am sure your brain is so dense that you will not be able to comprehend that is just what is happening these days.

|6.18.09 @ 1:39PM|#

One other thing Tom. How Paris Hilton or anyone else got their money is none of your God Damned Business. You and your fellow statist assholes want to stand in judgement over the entire country and determine who really is worthy of keeping what they earn and who needs to have it taken for the common good. Why does Paris owe you one red cent? Who cares that she got her money from her grandfather. He made it fair and square. And if he wants to give it to his whtie trash granddaughhter that is his business.

Yours and Tony's comments really betray what nasty fucks liberals are at heart. In a liberal's mind no one can be left alone. Everyone must be judged and taxed according to what the liberal views as worthy. Well fuck that.

|6.18.09 @ 1:40PM|#

"Are you trying to say that social safety nets don't allow people to take more risks?"

Please cite concrete examples of social safety nets mitigating risk. Specific, actual, verifiable examples. Thanks in advance of your efforts.

Gilbert Martin|6.18.09 @ 1:40PM|#

"The Paris Hiltons of the world are the exceptions not the rule. Further, why is Paris Hilton wealthy? Because her grandfather worked his ass off and built a hotel empire."

Right.

I will also add that private property rights are unconditional, absolute and forever.

Whether Paris Hilton ever worked a day in her life or not is irrelevant. Whatever wealth she has is every bit as much hers regardless of whether 99% of it came from an inheritence or not.

No one else on earth has a legitimate claim on so much as one cent of it.

|6.18.09 @ 1:40PM|#

"Palin, your stupidity makes my head hurt."

Your ad hominems make my ass leak.

|6.18.09 @ 1:40PM|#

"Are you trying to say that social safety nets don't allow people to take more risks? And since social safety nets have to be paid for by taxes -- i have to ask what is that you have been smoking that you think that statement is false."


You assume that that safety net comes for free. It doesn't. It comes at the price of robbing people of the benefit of their labors. Why take risks and work hard when the government is going to take it in taxes anyway? Further, why work hard at all if the government will take care of you regardless.

|6.18.09 @ 1:42PM|#

so that we don't have to kick the poor out of the hospitals.

Nice.

The Angry Optimist|6.18.09 @ 1:42PM|#

Mr. Cynical - I am sure that EAP meant people who are, by the political definition, "unemployed", not five days without a job.

But, yeah, if six months from now you're still not working anywhere...you're lazy.

Dear God, you might have to skip Starbucks this week so that we don't have to kick the poor out of the hospitals. What an attrocity!

I'd be glad to voluntarily skip expensive coffee for a month to give to a deserving charity. Shit, I do that now. It's the gall of people like you who think that any luxury spending should be seized and given to people YOU designate as needy, by force, no less, that is infuriating.

Again, your jokey-caricatures of rich people and all this talk about the Hiltons is just proof that liberals are jealous, angry statists who cannot stand to see anybody live better than anybody else. You're a superficial, vain, ignorant and stupid little man who will use force to make sure we're all suffering equally.

|6.18.09 @ 1:43PM|#

"Palin, your stupidity makes my head hurt.
So, I got laid off from my job this past Friday after 8 years of service "due to the economy" as I was told. So for the last 8 years, I was a good, hard working taxpayer.....now 5 days later, I am just a lazy person"

At the moment you are in transition. But with 8 years of experienc, if you don't have a job in 3 months, you're lazy.

I was laid off in January of '03, during a recession. I found work -- better conditions and more pay -- within 3 months.

|6.18.09 @ 1:46PM|#

When you have no point, use Latin, makes you feel smart. Sorry your ass is leaking, that is a sign of being lazy.
I will just back and wait for some proof that all unemployed people are lazy.

|6.18.09 @ 1:47PM|#

Without the benefits of government and society, you would be earning far less than you currently do."

Wait- I thought the government was the only thing constraining my all-engulfing rapacity. Without the government to keep me in check, I would be as rich as Croesus, trampling all lesser mortals in my path.

Which is it?

|6.18.09 @ 1:49PM|#

The Paris Hiltons of the world are the exceptions not the rule.

BULL FUCKING SHIT.

There's a reason it's called "OLD MONEY" John. The success may have come from smart decisions or hard work generations ago, but their offspring were lucky enough to be born into the right families. The Hilton's were one example, but the list can go on and on. The Kennedys, Rockefellers, Bushes.

Furthermore, don't pretend like the rich don't have undue influence on the policymakers, and don't use their money skew policy to favor them at the expense of the working class.

Just look at our economy and the bailouts. You don't think thats class warfare against the poor??? The rich lobbying and buying off politicians to bail out there bad business decisions with tax dollars while gutting the fucking inheritance tax and making it harder for poor people to get out of debt (bankruptcy reform)

But for every Paris Hilton there are a million small business people and mid level managers and sales people who work their asses off to get what little they have.

And those people aren't rich. They are upper middle class at BEST. Don't give me the small business bullshit. I have worked in small businesses and startups all my life. And those people are rich. Not the guys who started it and not the mid level managers. You know who is RICH? The venture capitalists.

And are you gonna pretend that small business owners wouldn't benefit from single payer/government provided health care? Every small business I have worked at spent gobs of time EVERY year trying to shop around for health insurance because the costs were out of control.

Single Payer would be a boon to these beloved entrepreneurs -- it would reduce costs and relieve them of the burden of trying to provide these benefits in order to compete for talent.


The crime of people like you Tom is that you talk about Paris Hilton knowing all the while that the people you really want to rob from is everyone else.

I don't even know what the fuck you are talking about.

Taxation isn't theft regardless of how many times you and the fuckwits keep repeating it. It's how a modern society functions and provides services that a modern society should have for it's people.

And if that means the trust fund babies and multi-millionaires, have to pay a 40-45 percent marginal tax rate so fucking be it.

Fascitis Necrotizante|6.18.09 @ 1:50PM|#

I will just back and wait for some proof that all unemployed people are lazy.

HA! Typical. That's exactly what a lazy motherfucker would do.

Gilbert Martin|6.18.09 @ 1:51PM|#

"I will just back and wait for some proof that all unemployed people are lazy."

While you're waiting, you can work on coming up with some proof that your status of being unemployed entitles you to a handout of somebody else's money.

|6.18.09 @ 1:51PM|#

You assume that that safety net comes for free. It doesn't. It comes at the price of robbing people of the benefit of their labors.

No I STATED it comes from taxes. That isn't free. that's a shared cost that tends to be cheaper than it would be if it wasn't paid for via taxes.

But feel free to keep playing the taxation is theft card.

Name one country in the world that doesn't tax. One. Please.

|6.18.09 @ 1:51PM|#

Angry optimist and Palin, I will agree that if I am not working in a few months, then it will be because I am lazy. I know people who are not working and are not looking because they can get by on unemployment. I was raised to work and I will, even if it is for much less pay. I would rather earn $400 a week on my own than to get more than that from the government.

Rhywun|6.18.09 @ 1:52PM|#

Lying cheating and stealing is how they got ahead so they assume it must be how everyone else did to.

Yeah, there's none of that in the corporate world. *rolls eyes*

This thread has sure devolved into another patented nuance-less shouting match, hasn't it.

The Angry Optimist|6.18.09 @ 1:54PM|#

ChicagoTom proves that he, too, has this jokey-vision of Thurston Howell the III eating roast orphans and laughing through a cigar.

And if that means the trust fund babies and multi-millionaires, have to pay a 40-45 percent marginal tax rate so fucking be it.

Wow, what an awesome incentive for more people to become millionaires!

"did you work hard to get your millions? Did you take risks that no one else could take? Well, here's a message from ChicagoTom: FUCK YOU OLD MONEY SPONGE! FORK OVER THE CASH!"

|6.18.09 @ 1:55PM|#

"I will just back and wait for some proof that all unemployed people are lazy."

You tell us you're unemployed and you say you're just gonna (sit) back and wait.

Thanks!

|6.18.09 @ 1:57PM|#

At the moment you are in transition. But with 8 years of experienc, if you don't have a job in 3 months, you're lazy.


Really? If he is looking for a job for 3 months and doesnt get an offer he is lazy? (especially since with such high unemployment making the talent pool so much more competive)


I was laid off in January of '03, during a recession. I found work -- better conditions and more pay -- within 3 months.

What was the unemployment rate in Jan '03?

And therein lies the reason why libertarianism (at least the type practiced by many on this board) will NEVER succeed, with statements like "Well things worked out for me 6 years ago -- and anyone else who doesn't have that same outcome must be a lazy good for nothing." -- Nevermind the fact that this person has been working for 8 fucking years.


Idiot!

Fluffy|6.18.09 @ 1:58PM|#

"let people take risks with their lives,"

I'm surprised you don't understand what this means immediately, Matt.

John Thacker was kind enough to provide a partial explanation in this thread. Of course, it's full of euphemisms, so maybe it would help if we restate it directly.

The entire "positive liberty" movement is built on the argument that it's a net increase in liberty if we seize money from you and give it to other people to help them avoid the consequences of their actions.

Doing so allows people to do stupid, careless and arbitrary things with their time without having to worry about it negatively impacting their life. And because these people have completely removed the notion of justice from their analysis, to them the liberty to be left secure in your person and property and the "liberty" to do stupid, careless and arbitrary things in a risk-free environment paid for by others really are the same.

Kreel Sarloo|6.18.09 @ 1:58PM|#

"The level of welfare given to the wealthy in the last couple decades makes social insurance programs look like spare change tossed in a guitar case."

And every penny of that "welfare" that was given to "the wealthy" was "justified" in the name of "creating jobs" and "helping the poor".

And the pols who voted for it were just as likely, if not more, to be liberal Democrats than Republicans.

|6.18.09 @ 1:58PM|#

Wow, what an awesome incentive for more people to become millionaires

Right -- cuz people are going to forgo making 10 million dollars if they only get to keep 6 million of it. THey are instead going to decide to try and not make more than say 50-60K so that they pay a smaller percentage of tax.

Idiot

|6.18.09 @ 2:00PM|#

And every penny of that "welfare" that was given to "the wealthy" was "justified" in the name of "creating jobs" and "helping the poor".

No linky, no chatty, Kreel. No linky, no chatty.

|6.18.09 @ 2:00PM|#

Gilbert, you are really bright. I have not said I need someones handout. Once again, another fucking pencil dick who likes to make things up. So quit patting yourself on the back, because you are doing nothing for me.
The only point I have made is that not everyone is out of work because they are lazy.

Gilbert Martin|6.18.09 @ 2:00PM|#

"Taxation isn't theft regardless of how many times you and the fuckwits keep repeating it"

The part of taxes that anyone pays that represents the value of services being provided to that specific individual in return in exchange for his or her money insn't theft.

Any amount anyone is required to pay in taxes over that amount is theft.

|6.18.09 @ 2:01PM|#

Doing so allows people to do stupid, careless and arbitrary things with their time without having to worry about it negatively impacting their life. And because these people have completely removed the notion of justice from their analysis, to them the liberty to be left secure in your person and property and the "liberty" to do stupid, careless and arbitrary things in a risk-free environment paid for by others really are the same.

Yes sometihng stupid like changing jobs or starting a business if they don't have to worry about medical coverage for their families...

or investing in the stock market if they know that SSI will at least provide a bare minimum to them if the markets tank

|6.18.09 @ 2:03PM|#

"Really? If he is looking for a job for 3 months and doesnt get an offer he is lazy? (especially since with such high unemployment making the talent pool so much more competive)"

He can clean office buildings.

The woamn who cleans my office every night is from Ecuador. She's about 20. She goes to school full-time in order to better learn English and earn a GED. She works full-time in the evenings cleaning offices.

If a 20-year-old immigrant woman with no GED and limited English skills can find a job, then anyone can.

To be fair, she tells me doesn't dine out much.

|6.18.09 @ 2:03PM|#

The part of taxes that anyone pays that represents the value of services being provided to that specific individual in return in exchange for his or her money insn't theft.

Right because none of us benefit from roads if we don't drive cars right? And if I run a business but I don't ride public transit, there is no benefit to me right?

The Angry Optimist|6.18.09 @ 2:05PM|#

See what happens when you challenge ChicagoTom? His "libertarianism" turns into rancid statism.

Right -- cuz people are going to forgo making 10 million dollars if they only get to keep 6 million of it. THey are instead going to decide to try and not make more than say 50-60K so that they pay a smaller percentage of tax.

Hey man, you can believe what you like, but that is a lot of what happens. Incentives are real and they exist. Shit, ChicagoTom, by your logic, we should just raise the tax to 90%, because no one cares what the tax rate is anyway, right?

Oh wait. And as it turns out, a lot of people "worth" millions of dollars are "worth" that in stock and company assets. They aren't just sitting on huge piles of cash like Scrooge McDuck. They are reinvesting it into their own corporations or are consuming, which also provides jobs.

|6.18.09 @ 2:06PM|#

"What was the unemployment rate in Jan '03?"

5.8%

http://www.doleta.gov/performance/Charts/Unemployment_Jan03_08.cfm

|6.18.09 @ 2:07PM|#

If a 20-year-old immigrant woman with no GED and limited English skills can find a job, then anyone can.


Does she support a family? Is she the sole breadwinner in her house.


Also my wife's company recently was looking to hire. Since she works in the leisure/travel industry they had lots of applicants because of the state of the industry (many of them former managers and supervisors) -- the problem was that too many of them were OVER qualified. They knew that if they spent time training them, if they got a better offer they would bolt this entry level job.

Maybe just maybe the world isn't as simple as "well he could clean offices".

Johnny Clamboat|6.18.09 @ 2:07PM|#

The subhed of the article:

Progressives need to stop worrying and learn to love taxes

At the bottom, a link to:

Support independent media with a tax-deductible donation

|6.18.09 @ 2:08PM|#

"What was the unemployment rate in Jan '03?"

5.8%

And now it's a 9.4 percent. So MAYBE just MAYBE the job market was MUCH better for you in '03 than today and has nothing to do with laziness?

|6.18.09 @ 2:10PM|#

"The only point I have made is that not everyone is out of work because they are lazy."

Yes, they are. Or at least lazier than my 20-year-old, immigrant, limited English skills, no GED cleaning woman.

Chad|6.18.09 @ 2:10PM|#

Yeah Tony and everyone who owns a business or makes a good living is just lucky. It has nothing to do with work or sacrifice

I would put being wealthy down to the following four things, at about 25% each

1: Being smart
2: Working hard
3: Connections
4: Dumb luck

Note that you have minimal control over #1, only partial control over #3, and no control over #4.

The Angry Optimist|6.18.09 @ 2:11PM|#

Luck doesn't exist. Things happen or they do not, and you can prepare yourself and make your own luck. True story.

|6.18.09 @ 2:11PM|#

Just look at our economy and the bailouts. You don't think thats class warfare against the poor???

Yes it was class warfare. But it was done mostly by the left side of the spectrum, not by the right. Progressive democrats were behind the policies that led to the collapse, and are still actively working to prevent its correction. It was a Democrat administration that took the initial bailouts and grossly expanded them.

Most of this was in the name of protecting the virtuous poor against the horrible rich. It was due to the left's active pursuit of class warfare.

This all happened because goodnicks like you had to stick your fat clumsy fingers into the gears of the economy. Don't use fairness as an excuse, because in your quest for fairness you have subjected the poor to the spectre of long term double-digit inflation and unemployment. The rich can weather such storms, but the poor cannot. Congratulations on fucking up.

Guess who most strenously objected to bailing out the rich fatcats who gambled with the poor's money? It wasn't you, it was people on the right side of the spectrum! I'm not excusing Bush, Greenspan, Paulsen and the other fuckfaces, but if you want way out of this mess you need to be looking at the few remaining small government types on the right, rather than the class warriors on the left.

|6.18.09 @ 2:12PM|#

Yes, they are. Or at least lazier than my 20-year-old, immigrant, limited English skills, no GED cleaning woman.

Just shut up please. Seriously. Just shut up.

|6.18.09 @ 2:13PM|#

"Does she support a family? Is she the sole breadwinner in her house."

SHE HAS A FUCKING JOB.

|6.18.09 @ 2:15PM|#

"And now it's a 9.4 percent. So MAYBE just MAYBE the job market was MUCH better for you in '03 than today and has nothing to do with laziness?"

No. I'd have a job even sooner. I have a sweet resume' and top-shelf references (Senators and stuff).

And if I couldn't find work in my field, I'd clean offices with Gloria. Or mow lawns. Or walk dogs...

The Angry Optimist|6.18.09 @ 2:15PM|#

Seriously, ChicagoTom, I just searched my city's McDonald's listings...Crew only!...and found over 70 available jobs, starting from about 7.30 an hour and going up from there.

If you don't have a job after six months, you're lazy. I'm with EAP.

|6.18.09 @ 2:15PM|#

It seems the Republicans are out in full force today on here. All poor people are lazy, all rich people are hard working . If you try to make a point about anything, all of the sudden you are trying to raise taxes, even if your statement had nothing to do with it. Throw in some "tell Obama we are a Christian nation" comments, and I could feel like I am at the RNC.

|6.18.09 @ 2:17PM|#

Yes it was class warfare. But it was done mostly by the left side of the spectrum, not by the right. Progressive democrats were behind the policies that led to the collapse, and are still actively working to prevent its correction. It was a Democrat administration that took the initial bailouts and grossly expanded them.

Which progressives were behind bailing out the banks??
Progressives like Greenspan? Summers? Geithner? Paulson? Bernake?

Whose idea were the bailouts and TARP and all this shit?

What horse shit.

If you were talking about the stimulus you'd have a point, but the TARP and the bailouts of Citi and AIG and those were absolutely NOT because of progressives. That was the rich demanding that the government protect them from their own excesses.

Socialism for the rich, bootstraps for everyone else.

|6.18.09 @ 2:17PM|#

"Just shut up please. Seriously. Just shut up."

Proof once again that to some, the truth is painful.

The Angry Optimist|6.18.09 @ 2:18PM|#

Nice strawman, Mr. Cynical. Poor people, by and large, are poor because of the choices they have made, and wealthy people are, for the most part, wealthy because of the choices they have made.

That's all we're saying. It is, in fact, not us who are painting a broad brush here. Chad's saying that you're predetermined to be wealthy and ChicagoTom is battling Thurston Howell the III and Snidley Whiplash all rolled into one.

Fascitis Necrotizante|6.18.09 @ 2:19PM|#

Get a job, asshat. Shouldn't you be out hitting the pavement? Highlighting classifieds?

|6.18.09 @ 2:19PM|#

"It seems the Republicans are out in full force today on here"

Mislabel much?

|6.18.09 @ 2:20PM|#

"Throw in some "tell Obama we are a Christian nation""

Psssst...your ass is showing.

|6.18.09 @ 2:20PM|#

Seriously, ChicagoTom, I just searched my city's McDonald's listings...Crew only!...and found over 70 available jobs, starting from about 7.30 an hour and going up from there.

Shocking!

So again, we are going to pretend that people never refuse to hire overqualified people because they know they'll bolt the fist chance they get?

And if I have to take a job at mcdonald's making not enough to support my family then I can't be out there looking for a job that will support my family (which is kind of the point of unemployment insurace -- to allow you to get something to keep you going until you do find a job).

And the unemployment rate has gone from 5.4% in '03 to 10% because of sheer laziness, right?

|6.18.09 @ 2:21PM|#

There are two great progressive lies that Tom and Tony are perpetraiting here. The first is that we can have this progresso wonderland if only the "rich would pay taxes". Of course the rich don't pay enough taxes and are able to avoid taxes anyway. The burden of government falls always on the middle and upper middle class that Tom and Tony swear they don't want to tax but always have to. The second is the idea that the government can really help the poor and make the world better. That is the most insidious lie. The reality is that government spending, espeically social welfare spending, rarely ever does the good that it is sold to do. It mostly gets siphoned off to the politically connected. In the end, most suffer and the connected prosper.

Chad|6.18.09 @ 2:21PM|#

Enough About Palin | June 18, 2009, 2:10pm | #

Yes, they are. Or at least lazier than my 20-year-old, immigrant, limited English skills, no GED cleaning woman.

Palin, it would be irrational for a medium or high earning professional to invest their time in $8/hour work rather than continuing their job search.

Jack Torrance|6.18.09 @ 2:22PM|#

"I will just back and wait for some proof that all unemployed people are lazy."

http://www.job.com/my.job/search/page=jobview/pt=2/key=18669774/p=1/us=1384/

The Angry Optimist|6.18.09 @ 2:22PM|#

ChicagoTom - what was the party-line vote on TARP and the first bailout? Why was that failure so embarrassing for McCain again?

you're full of it.

|6.18.09 @ 2:22PM|#

If any of you think I paid my way through college to get my degrees so I can work as a crew person at McDonalds, you can go to hell. I will find a good job, but not there. I have my own bills to pay to take care of myself. I am not sharing an apartment with 5 other immigrants, so $6 an hour is not enough to survive.

Forty-Two|6.18.09 @ 2:23PM|#

Can progressives, in good conscience, take tax deductions?

What percentage of progressives add a little extra to their yearly check to the IRS, just because they know it's not really their money?

|6.18.09 @ 2:23PM|#

"And if I have to take a job at mcdonald's making not enough to support my family then I can't be out there looking for a job that will support my family"

That's what the Earned Income Credit is for. It compensates low-skilled low-earners with children.

|6.18.09 @ 2:23PM|#

That's all we're saying. It is, in fact, not us who are painting a broad brush here. Chad's saying that you're predetermined to be wealthy and ChicagoTom is battling Thurston Howell the III and Snidley Whiplash all rolled into one..

Talk about strawmen!

Im battling:

Idiots who say things like all poor people are lazy pot smokers or booze hounds and people who can't find a job in 3 months are lazy.

Idiots who assert with a straight face a marginal tax rate of 40% will cause people to not want to be rich!

Fluffy|6.18.09 @ 2:24PM|#

or investing in the stock market if they know that SSI will at least provide a bare minimum to them if the markets tank

The state has made a century-long effort using many different powers of government to try to draw average people into the public stock markets. Who has benefited from that the most?

Remember, my critique of statism is in good part based on the belief that state land use, transportation, taxation, broadcast, utility, and financial markets policy are responsible for the sort of "late capitalist" corporatism that leftists complain about all the time. So an argument that state policies that encourage savers to turn their savings over to the class that dominates the regulated public markets increases liberty is going to be met with skepticism from me.

Yes sometihng stupid like changing jobs or starting a business if they don't have to worry about medical coverage for their families...

How did everyone get to be so dependent on employer-provided health insurance, Tom? The state's tax policies and the state's medical care demand inflation and the state's regulation of the health insurance industry had a lot to do with that.

And you know what? For every person who would use "positive liberty" to start a business, there are fifteen guys who would use the "positive liberty" ability to make life choices without worrying about supporting themselves to pursue their dream career in musical theater or what have you. And it would be paid for by the people who didn't make frivolous choices.

I think a large part of the "positive liberty" mindset is driven by 60's nostalgia. Because of a unique set of demographic and economic circumstances, you had a generation come to adulthood where many members were able to do things like experiment with drugs, join odd religions, run away to live communal lifestyles, get arrested lots of times, bum around the world like a hobo for a few years, move to New York to try to be an artist, etc., and still managed to pick themselves up and have successful careers and lives materially afterwards once they stopped fucking around. And the positive liberty folks want to recreate that milieu by taxing boring people who do things like go to college for a degree with monetary value and work at careers that are actually in demand. And I guess that sounds attractive, until you consider the justice of indulging the lifestyle fantasies of neohippies by taxing people who make more responsible choices.

The Angry Optimist|6.18.09 @ 2:24PM|#

Hey, that was just crew jobs in one city at one restaurant. There are over 30 management positions available, too. And in case you weren't aware, a GM at a Mickey D's isn't exactly making chicken feed. And crew jobs frequently lead to supervisor positions, if you're willing to show up on time and not be a douchebag at work (most FF employees aren't).

|6.18.09 @ 2:25PM|#

That's what the Earned Income Credit is for. It compensates low-skilled low-earners with children.

Wow the earned income tax credit. That's the ticket to the middle class.

And aren't libertarians against that? I mean why should low earners with children get special tax credits?

|6.18.09 @ 2:25PM|#

"Palin, it would be irrational for a medium or high earning professional to invest their time in $8/hour work rather than continuing their job search."

You can do both. Look for work in the daytime and work at McDonald's at night. But of course if you're too lazy to do that...

Fascitis Necrotizante|6.18.09 @ 2:27PM|#

Of course $6 dollars an hour is enough to survive! You just might have to move into an apartment with 5 other immigrants. Tough breaks, kid.

And I just hope you "paid your way to college to get your degrees" to work for your own bread and not suck away unemployment checks. That should be lower, status-wise, than working at McDonalds, but I understand we're all entitled to something...

|6.18.09 @ 2:27PM|#

You can do both. Look for work in the daytime and work at McDonald's at night. But of course if you're too lazy to do that...

RIght because the employees at mcdonalds have so much leverage to tell their boss "Im not gonna work day hours".

Considering that McDonald's (and many low pay low skill positions) hire lots of HS aged kids who can't work days but have nights free, maybe this isn't as realistic as you keep pretending?

Fluffy|6.18.09 @ 2:27PM|#

Idiots who say things like all poor people are lazy pot smokers or booze hounds and people who can't find a job in 3 months are lazy.

It really doesn't matter if they're lazy or not. That's not the question. The question is whether you can point out something I have personally done to cause them to be unemployed. Since you're asking me to remedy the harm here, I'd like to know what I did to cause the harm.

|6.18.09 @ 2:28PM|#

Fascitis Necrotizante, did you know you can apply for a job on-line. Welcome to the present. I am not looking for some minimum wage job, so I am not out hitting the streets. Dumbass.

|6.18.09 @ 2:29PM|#

"I think a large part of the "positive liberty" mindset is driven by 60's nostalgia. Because of a unique set of demographic and economic circumstances, you had a generation come to adulthood where many members were able to do things like experiment with drugs, join odd religions, run away to live communal lifestyles, get arrested lots of times, bum around the world like a hobo for a few years, move to New York to try to be an artist, etc., and still managed to pick themselves up and have successful careers and lives materially afterwards once they stopped fucking around. And the positive liberty folks want to recreate that milieu by taxing boring people who do things like go to college for a degree with monetary value and work at careers that are actually in demand. And I guess that sounds attractive, until you consider the justice of indulging the lifestyle fantasies of neohippies by taxing people who make more responsible choices."


That is an excellent way to put it. I never thought of it that way.

|6.18.09 @ 2:30PM|#

How did everyone get to be so dependent on employer-provided health insurance, Tom? The state's tax policies and the state's medical care demand inflation and the state's regulation of the health insurance industry had a lot to do with that.

Because unlike the rest of the modern world we decided to treat health care as a commodity.

Because people like you keep fighting against the government providing this most basic benefit to its citizens.

The Angry Optimist|6.18.09 @ 2:30PM|#

See how this works?

"I can't get a job"

RE: "Yes, you can. Here are plenty of jobs"

"well, those aren't good enough for what I need to do"

RE: "Well, you could try working two jobs and making it work."

"WHAT?! You think that's going to work? I don't have any leverage!"

RE: "I can really see you're dedicated to making this work. What an amazing work ethic you have!"

Chad|6.18.09 @ 2:31PM|#

The Angry Optimist | June 18, 2009, 2:18pm | #

Chad's saying that you're predetermined to be wealthy.

Just the opposite. How much wealth you aquire is quite random. It is related to how smart and how hard you work, but only to a degree. Lots of other random events and chance connections make huge impacts.

For example, the richest person I know of in my high school class is a is a low-level executive at a major insurance company (note, we are in our mid thirties). How did he get there? Well, he is a pretty bright guy (an A- student, as I recall). He got his accounting degree at a good public university. Then he got the job at the major insurance company....through a connection. It turns out that his father's old college buddy was a VP at the company. So my classmate not only gets his foot in the door through this connection, but gets a very helpful and watchful eye over his career. Now I am sure he works hard, and I know he is smart (but not insanely so), but does ANYONE believe that some equally hard-working, equally bright new hire without such a connection would get the same chance for success, the same choice assignments, etc? Obviously not.

Gilbert Martin|6.18.09 @ 2:31PM|#

"Right because none of us benefit from roads if we don't drive cars right?"

Any benefits you receive from an indirect use of the road such as the availability goods or services provided by others who are using the roads is already being charged to you as part of the cost of those goods or services when the direct user passes his cost through.

There's no reason to be paying again for it
through any additional taxation.


"And if I run a business but I don't ride public transit, there is no benefit to me right?"

There is no reason that taxpayers should be required to subsidize your business by providing you with access to customers who would not otherwise show up if they couldn't get subisidized transportation.

|6.18.09 @ 2:32PM|#

"And aren't libertarians against that? I mean why should low earners with children get special tax credits?"

I'm okay with a safety net for people willing to work.

Many Libertarians are okay with that.

Chad|6.18.09 @ 2:33PM|#

ChicagoTom | June 18, 2009, 2:27pm | #

RIght because the employees at mcdonalds have so much leverage to tell their boss "Im not gonna work day hours".

Or tell them that they need every other week off so they can fly out of town for interviews.

|6.18.09 @ 2:33PM|#

"RIght because the employees at mcdonalds have so much leverage to tell their boss "Im not gonna work day hours"."

It's the day hours that are in demand so I'm gonna have to say yes, that's right.

|6.18.09 @ 2:33PM|#

It really doesn't matter if they're lazy or not. That's not the question. The question is whether you can point out something I have personally done to cause them to be unemployed. Since you're asking me to remedy the harm here, I'd like to know what I did to cause the harm.


What "remedy" do you think I am demanding?

if the discussion is about social safety nets, it isn't about harm caused or whatever...it's about assisting all of us when we are at our most vulnerable. Maybe some of us are lucky enough to never be that vulnerable. Great.

Bust just because I have never had a car accident doesn't mean that car insurance is a bad/stupid/silly idea.

|6.18.09 @ 2:34PM|#

"Because unlike the rest of the modern world we decided to treat health care as a commodity."


It is a commodity you nitwit. is there an infinite supply of it? Can everyone get all the healthcare they desire at no cost? No they can't, so it is a commodity. Denying reality and pretending that it is not, is not productive.

|6.18.09 @ 2:34PM|#

It's the day hours that are in demand so I'm gonna have to say yes, that's right.

No linky, no talky!

See how nice that works

|6.18.09 @ 2:35PM|#

"I am not looking for some minimum wage job, so I am not out hitting the streets."

Enjoy my teats, bitch!

The Angry Optimist|6.18.09 @ 2:35PM|#

Right, so like I said, Chad, it's destiny whether you're wealthy.

Although you should note that, absent your friend's work ethic, that connection wouldn't have done him *any* good at all. But hey, you know, wealthy people are this big conspiracy and all...

|6.18.09 @ 2:35PM|#

"if the discussion is about social safety nets, it isn't about harm caused or whatever...it's about assisting all of us when we are at our most vulnerable. Maybe some of us are lucky enough to never be that vulnerable. Great. "

But why does that "safety net" require 35% of our GNP? That is the lie that progressives always tell. Somehow, helping the less fortunate becomes a two trillion dollar monster governent that is eating the contry.

|6.18.09 @ 2:36PM|#

There is no reason that taxpayers should be required to subsidize your business by providing you with access to customers who would not otherwise show up if they couldn't get subisidized transportation.


Uhmm -- there are plenty of reasons to do so. Just because you don't agree with them doesn't mean they don't exist.

|6.18.09 @ 2:37PM|#

Fascitis Necrotizante, yeah, my whole reason to go to college was to get by unemployment. Where do you get these presumptions.
I grew up on a farm, which meant work. I worked during high school, and college. I went to work immediately after college. So now, 18 years after college, I will get my first unemployment check soon, which I do believe my taxes have helped pay for. So, I have been unemployed for 5 days, and I have geniuses like yourself saying I am lazy. I still will not work at McDonalds, I will probably get a bartending job until I can find decent employment. But please, keep posting your comments, since you know so much.

|6.18.09 @ 2:37PM|#

"Chad | June 18, 2009, 2:33pm | #
ChicagoTom | June 18, 2009, 2:27pm | #

RIght because the employees at mcdonalds have so much leverage to tell their boss "Im not gonna work day hours".

Or tell them that they need every other week off so they can fly out of town for interviews."

Neither of you guys have ever worked in the service industry have you?

|6.18.09 @ 2:38PM|#

But why does that "safety net" require 35% of our GNP? That is the lie that progressives always tell. Somehow, helping the less fortunate becomes a two trillion dollar monster governent that is eating the contry.

What % would you find acceptable. If you answer is > 0 then we can have an honest discussion. Otherwise your complaint about the size is disingenuous.

|6.18.09 @ 2:38PM|#

John

You don't understand; commodities are dirty.

The Angry Optimist|6.18.09 @ 2:40PM|#

I still will not work at McDonalds, I will probably get a bartending job until I can find decent employment.

A bartender at the watering hole down the street from me makes six-figures at it. Of course, he's in there every. single. night. of the week, but I can tell you're not *that* dedicated to hard work, so...

|6.18.09 @ 2:40PM|#

"What % would you find acceptable. If you answer is > 0 then we can have an honest discussion. Otherwise your complaint about the size is disingenuous."


No it is not being disengenius. These programs can never be contained. We started out in the 1960s with a few billion dollars to help the poor and forty years later we are broke despite being the richest country in the history of the world. Moreover, our poor are even worse off now than they were before in many ways. We spent trillions of dollars in wealth and got nothing in return. Yet, people like you never have to answer for those failures. Forty years later, you can make the same tired arguments like the diaster that has been the last 40 years never happened.

Gilbet Martin|6.18.09 @ 2:40PM|#

"Uhmm -- there are plenty of reasons to do so. Just because you don't agree with them doesn't mean they don't exist."

You cannot prove that a single one exists.

|6.18.09 @ 2:41PM|#

grew up on a farm, which meant work. I worked during high school, and college. I went to work immediately after college. So now, 18 years after college, I will get my first unemployment check soon, which I do believe my taxes have helped pay for. So, I have been unemployed for 5 days, and I have geniuses like yourself saying I am lazy.

Oh come on now Mr. Cynical. Everyone knows that if you weren't lazy you wouldn't have been let go to begin with. Your circumstances don't matter...why? Because in '03 some dude writing on a blog was able to find work right away -- and if he can do it everyone should be able to.

I mean even his immigrant cleaning lady can find work. Individual details/circumstances don't matter -- if she can do it so can you. Now get out there don't be lazy!

|6.18.09 @ 2:41PM|#

You cannot prove that a single one exists.

Idiot.

|6.18.09 @ 2:42PM|#

"No linky, no talky!

See how nice that works"

Goddam right:

Shifts are available Monday to Friday over lunch, which are 3, 4, 5, 6 or 8 hours in length. We can accommodate you to be home after your children leave for school and be home before your children return from school. You can be off any or all school holidays (Christmas Holidays, March Break, Summer Holidays and Statutory Holidays)

If working afternoon/night shifts fits your schedule better we have shifts available which are 5, 6, 7, or 8 hours in length. You pick your start time and finish time, along with the days of the week best fitting your schedule. We can accommodate 3, 4 or 5 afternoon/nights per week. The taking off of school holidays is also available for these shifts.

Benefits are available for certain shifts. These benefits include dental, vision, medical prescription reimbursements and other insurance benefits. We have a benefit packages to fit the different requirements of our employees



http://www.mcdonaldskitchener.com/dayandeveningemployment.htm

Gilbert Martin|6.18.09 @ 2:42PM|#

"We started out in the 1960s with a few billion dollars to help the poor and forty years later we are broke despite being the richest country in the history of the world."

When Medicare started in 1965, it's supporters projected the annual cost in 1990 wouold be $12 billion.

The actual annual cost for 1990 was over $100 billion.

|6.18.09 @ 2:42PM|#

These programs can never be contained.

So your answer is 0 ?

Look you can mentally masturbate all you want giving justifications, but at the end of the day you don't believe the social safety net should exist, right?

|6.18.09 @ 2:44PM|#

Palin, you dumbass, I am doing my job search on-line, so quit taking things out of context. I am not on your teats, I have paid my taxes too. I am so sorry if it such a burden on you that I will get unemployment that I have helped pay for but you seem to think is just all coming from you.

Gilbert Martin|6.18.09 @ 2:44PM|#

"Idiot."

I know you are.

That's why you claim the existence of things that don't exist.

The Angry Optimist|6.18.09 @ 2:45PM|#

First of all, again, when EAP said "unemployed" he meant the commonly-accepted use of that word when it comes to economy, NOT Mr. Cynical's "in transition" status, which is what he is in.

The basic assertion is that within some range of months (3 for EAP/6 for me) you go from "unfortunate and in transition" to "lazy bastard who needs to get off the couch".

Six months is a long-ass time to be out of a job, folks.

|6.18.09 @ 2:47PM|#

Because unlike the rest of the modern world we decided to treat health care as a commodity.

What the fuck are you talking about?

And why are you people so fucking obsessed with "health care"? Stop being such a mob of whiny hypochondriacs, for pity's sake.

Fascitis Necrotizante|6.18.09 @ 2:48PM|#

But please, keep posting your comments, since you know so much.

OK, Will do!

I'm glad that you've worked so hard during previous lifetimes.

I understand that unemployment sucks, before I got my present job early last year I had to live on savings for five months and take on a much reduced standard of living to make ends meet.

I didn't go around mugging people. Nor did I allow anyone else to mug others for me (hint: taxation). Your taxes have contributed to others' unemployment payments, but this does not excuse you from currently demanding yours of me. Even though I kind of think you're an asshole and don't owe you a cent. Why should I be coerced into easing you along into the world of the funemployed?

I wouldn't have a problem with a private unemployment insurance system where people made payments to balance the risk of their own unemployment, a la any other catastrophic event. I do have a problem with one funded by me at gunpoint. (What would happen if I declined to offer you a portion of my paycheck?)

Unrelated, and not to you in particular, but an acquaintance of mine (BA in political science) was unemployed for six months last year (before taking work makin' calls for the Obama campaign, fittingly) and was able to continue to draw Florida unemployment while vacationing in Costa Rica. Finding himself and fun adventures etc...

|6.18.09 @ 2:48PM|#

Six months is a long-ass time to be out of a job, folks.

I agree that 6 months is a long time, in general. But you have to admit that economic circumstances play a part as well. In poor economic times 6 months isn't that long.

Again, why is unemployment so high right now? Laziness?

|6.18.09 @ 2:48PM|#

"First of all, again, when EAP said "unemployed" he meant the commonly-accepted use of that word when it comes to economy, NOT Mr. Cynical's "in transition" status, which is what he is in."

I used the words "in transition". But yeah.

Mr. Cynical would rather suck my teats than work. He has said so himself. Re[peatedly. I admire his cander. But nothing else.

Now it's on to a better thread...

|6.18.09 @ 2:49PM|#

so I am not out hitting the streets.

No kidding- you're fucking off.

|6.18.09 @ 2:50PM|#

And why are you people so fucking obsessed with "health care"? Stop being such a mob of whiny hypochondriacs, for pity's sake.

Because health care is a huge drag on small business and personal wealth.

Because the insurance companies are fucking with peoples lives, denying valid claims and throwing people who need insurance off the rolls when they make claims.

Because these middle men are profiteering by making the whole fucking system more expensive.

Stop being such a prick.

Fluffy|6.18.09 @ 2:50PM|#

Because unlike the rest of the modern world we decided to treat health care as a commodity.

It is universally acknowledged across the political spectrum that preferential tax treatment for health benefits relative to wages, combined with 40's wage controls, gave birth to the system of employer-provided health care. It didn't spring from nowhere.

It is also universally acknowledged across the political spectrum that demand support programs for health care like Medicaid and Medicare increased the percentage of our GDP going to health care and as a result the per capita cost of health care.

It is also universally acknowledged across the political spectrum that mandates placed on health insurers to cover a particular basket of services or to accept a certain range of customers, or to supply pool pricing, had the effect of raising the cost of health care and health insurance for healthy adults living above the poverty line.

The various parties and stakeholders all have widely divergent ideas on how we should proceed to fix this problem, but no one seriously disputes that the system of employer-provided health care is a government creation, and no one seriously disputes that health care is more expensive than it otherwise would be due to a history of demand support. If you can't acknowledge that or respond with anything other than a platitude, we really shouldn't try to talk about health care.

I'm sure the reason you don't want to acknowledge the state's role in creating the problem is because you know that if you acknowledge the law of unintended consequences for previous state interventions in health care, I'll invoke it in response to plans offered now. But try to find a better way to evade the question than just saying, "It's because you people who wouldn't accept socialized medicine are the suxxorz!$^^!!!"

|6.18.09 @ 2:54PM|#

The Angry Optimist, you do not know me, so don't judge. People like you are really brave on a computer, because if you ever said that to my face, well, I don't have to worry about that because you would not have the balls. I have bartended or waited tables, etc, every time I have been in between jobs. I have also owned, managed and worked every position at a bar, so I know exactly how much work is involved. I could sit back and milk the system, but I am not doing that. A person needs more than 5 days to find a job, and with the crappy severance packages these days, I have to find work soon.

|6.18.09 @ 2:54PM|#

Mr. Cynical would rather suck my teats than work.

Do you really believe that the majority of people who are unemployed would rather be on welfare or taking their piddly unemployment than work a job that allows them to have a better standard of living?

Do you think these social safety nets provide anything other than a very basic and pretty miserable life/existance?

This argument gets trotted out all the time and it's bullshit.

People would rather work and support themselves and succeeed. Sometimes they need a hand. Government provides safety nets for those people

Why is that so fucking controversial?

|6.18.09 @ 2:54PM|#

I listed three things you're required to participate in: obeying laws, paying taxes, and participating in the census, among many other things.

"Obeying laws" rather begs the question of which laws should be regarded as legitimate laws in a free society. I think its rather an abuse of the language to say that "obeying laws" is "participating."

There is no requirement that I participate in the census. In fact, I refuse to fully participate in the census, answering only the Constitutionally permitted question (how many people live here?).

The formulation that a rich social welfare state "let[s] people take risks with their lives" is nonsense. Anybody can take any risks they want with their lives regardless of food stamps or national healthcare or any of the rest of it. The social welfare state merely lets them avoid some of the consequences of taking those risks.

I'll take your reference to "paying taxes" as a concession that this is the participation on my part that you are most interested in.

|6.18.09 @ 2:56PM|#

Because unlike the rest of the modern world we decided to treat health care as a commodity.

Having healthcare controlled and rationed by the state is no less treating it as a commodity.

|6.18.09 @ 2:59PM|#

Yes, they are. Or at least lazier than my 20-year-old, immigrant, limited English skills, no GED cleaning woman.

Palin, it would be irrational for a medium or high earning professional to invest their time in $8/hour work rather than continuing their job search.

Geez, Chad, you pay your cleaning woman $8/hour? When my wife was doing a lot of traveling, we had to pay more like $20 - $25/hour to find anyone to clean our house.

Fluffy|6.18.09 @ 3:01PM|#

Because these middle men are profiteering by making the whole fucking system more expensive.

I really have to respond to this absurd talking point too, because it's starting to get wide currency among people who should know better.

The progressive argument goes: "The private health care companies pay a lot of money to their executives, and spend money on marketing and administration, and also deliver profits to their shareholders, and if we just got rid of private insurers all this 'surplus' spending would be enough to fund health care for everyone who doesn't have it!"

Of course, if this was true for health care, it should be true for every other industry as well. It should be true that if we simply got rid of all private auto companies, the government could make all the cars, and all that "surplus" spending to "middlemen" that gets spent on marketing, salepeople, executives for all the different competing companies, dealers, finance companies, etc. could be used to give free cars to the all people who don't have one. How did that work out when it was tried in East Germany?

The "health insurers are middleman exploiters" is just 1920's "destructive wasteful competition" rhetoric dressed up for a new age. People swallow it because they've been convinced, using poetry and nothing else really, that health care is somehow different from every other industry in the world that provides products and services.

|6.18.09 @ 3:01PM|#

I'm sure the reason you don't want to acknowledge the state's role in creating the problem

Of course I acknowledge the states role in creating the problem. It created the problem when it decided to forgo universal coverage and instead try and use incentives to create a "market".

Every other "consequence" we have in this country is a direct result of that.

The Angry Optimist|6.18.09 @ 3:02PM|#

Anyone want to guess why tuition is through the roof right now? Oh, that's right, massive subsidization and entitlements mean an equivalent raise in tuition rates.

Anyone who thinks this same thing won't happen with health care is nuts. If everyone is given a de facto say, 10,000 "minimum", healthcare prices will go up by 10,000 per person. Guaranteed.

The Angry Optimist|6.18.09 @ 3:06PM|#

ChicagoTom acknowledges the state's role in creating the problem, and says "we need a bigger role for the state" to fix it.

Typical.

|6.18.09 @ 3:06PM|#

that health care is somehow different from every other industry in the world that provides products and services.

That's because it is different.

I can forgo a car, or buy a clunker or whatever to contain my costs.

I can eat less expensive foods or trim my budget in other ways or forgo lots of spending.

I can't do the same with my health care.

|6.18.09 @ 3:08PM|#

ChicagoTom acknowledges the state's role in creating the problem, and says "we need a bigger role for the state" to fix it.

I acknowledge that the state made a bad decision.
That doesn't mean that every decision is a bad one.

And I support trying a different approach. One that is in place in the rest of the industrialized world.


I know you think you made some grand point, but you didn't. It's a fallacy to assume that because an entity (any entity) makes mistakes doesn't mean everything that entity does is a mistake.

|6.18.09 @ 3:10PM|#

"I acknowledge that the state made a bad decision.
That doesn't mean that every decision is a bad one."


Even though government planners have fucked every thing they have touched up beyond repair for the last 50 years, this time things will be different. Yeah that makes sense. Hayak really had you people pegged.

|6.18.09 @ 3:10PM|#

It's a fallacy to assume that because an entity (any entity) makes mistakes doesn't mean everything that entity does is a mistake.

Damnit! There fixed.

Any way good chat everyone I am out for now.

Hugs and Kisses to my good friends TAO and EAP.

The Angry Optimist|6.18.09 @ 3:13PM|#

Woah, you can absolutely make choices about your health care that take cost into account.

you can forgo the "white" fillings in your teeth for the "silver" ones. (I paid extra for the white).

you can opt for codeine instead of morphine for pain. you can ride out that cold instead of running to the doctor about it.

There are a million ways to cut down on your personal health care expenditures. of course, with single payer, why should I make any of those difficult choices? Now I can get sweet, "free" meds for every little ache, pain and inconvenience my body experiences.

|6.18.09 @ 3:14PM|#

Tom, it appears some people have real problems understanding what they read. I have said I am looking for a job on-line, but these people turn it into I am not looking for a job. I mean, if you want a real professional job, they love for people to just walk in and ask for a job. They don't have any human resources depts., you just walk in and talk to the owner or CEO.
Palin thinks I am on her teats because I said so, which I did not. I have said I would rather earn $400 on my own than to get more than that from the government, but, maybe the sentence was too long to comprehend.
If I did not have to pay out so much goddam money in taxes, I would have more money saved up and I would not even take one check from unemployment. But that is not the case, since I was gouged on every paycheck.
Also, the Facist guy, whatever the hell his name is, is such a hard worker that if you mention real work, he thinks it is made up. It is so hard to believe that someone who grew up in south Alabama lived on a farm. Thats work you facist bitch, something I would doubt you have experienced. Part time jobs in college, wooooo, that is such a stretch of the imagination, it has to be in prior lives. This also leads me to believe, but I don't know for sure.....that Facist had everything handed down to him by daddy.
Well, gotta go, just called the CEO of Bank of America, and he said come on down, he has plenty of time to just talk anyone.

Fluffy|6.18.09 @ 3:17PM|#

That's because it is different.

I can forgo a car, or buy a clunker or whatever to contain my costs.

I can eat less expensive foods or trim my budget in other ways or forgo lots of spending.

I can't do the same with my health care.

Fine, it's "different" in that you are more unhappy if you're without it than you are if you're without a car.

But that type of "difference" isn't relative to the question that was being discussed.

We were discussing whether the talking point you were using - that health care could be fixed by removing the "middlemen" and using their operating margin to fund gaps in health care.

In other words, we were talking about the production side.

And if it's true that the way to fix the provision of health care is to go after the operating margin of private health care entities, then that should be true in every other industry. There should be no potential negative consequence to nationalizing all industries and eliminating anyone who works in those industries not involved in the direct provision of services or production of goods. Quality should remain the same, and cost control should remain the same, and all that should change is that the profits of the exploiters will be gone. It HAS to be true, or the talking point is false.

Fluffy|6.18.09 @ 3:18PM|#

Sorry, that should have read, "...isn't relevant to the question..." Not "relative".

Gilbert Martin|6.18.09 @ 3:19PM|#

"Of course I acknowledge the states role in creating the problem. It created the problem when it decided to forgo universal coverage and instead try and use incentives to create a "market". "

LOL

I see that Tommy boy's problem is that his mental health coverage has lapsed.

Chad|6.18.09 @ 3:25PM|#

The Angry Optimist | June 18, 2009, 3:13pm | #

There are a million ways to cut down on your personal health care expenditures. of course, with single payer, why should I make any of those difficult choices? Now I can get sweet, "free" meds for every little ache, pain and inconvenience my body experiences.

Wrong. It is not "single payer" that is creating this moral hazard. It is health insurance itself, regardless of how it is funded. Regardless of whether you pay for the insurance through taxes, through your employer, or directly, your personal decisions to consume or not consume do not have any significant impact on your rate.

This has always been the conundrum. Health insurance is simultaneously both a massive market failure (a moral hazard) and a necessity. No one has found a reasonable way to make this work without heavy government involvment. Our current system is a disaster.

The libertarian wishful thinking is to essentially make co-pays and deductibles so high that people actually stop consuming significantly. What we see in this case is that people then get wiped out by the bills, which is exactly what insurance is meant to prevent. A substantial fraction of those entering bankrupcty are doing so for health reasons and they have insurance. I am sorry, but your plan simply doesn't work. There is no point at which we can have both high enough co-payments to significantly reduce the moral hazards while simultaneously protecting people.

Gilbert Martin|6.18.09 @ 3:28PM|#

"It HAS to be true, or the talking point is false."

Of course it's false but the only thing matters politically is whether there are enough people who believe it to be true.

And plenty of people are willing to believe all sorts of things that tend to support an idea that they should be "entitled" to something whether they can pay for it themselves or not.

The Angry Optimist|6.18.09 @ 3:30PM|#

No, Chad, libertarian wishful thinking involves getting rid of the incentives that drive employer-based health insurance and let people shop for insurance like they do car insurance or home insurance.

The thing that reduces the "moral hazard" of insurees is to let the insurance company handle it. If you are an overuser, you get dropped by the insurance company. Of course, you want to make that kind of thing illegal, so yeah, you've essentially made it one big moral hazard.

JB|6.18.09 @ 3:38PM|#

Yglesias is one stupid motherfucker.

Gimlet|6.18.09 @ 3:46PM|#

" I could sit back and milk the system, but I am not doing that. A person needs more than 5 days to find a job, and with the crappy severance packages these days, I have to find work soon."

So in other words, you are a poor example of the current state of the employment scene.

Gimlet|6.18.09 @ 3:48PM|#

"This argument gets trotted out all the time and it's bullshit."

As I read this thread, I found that Mr. Cynical said he'd rather not work while searching for a job. Sounds like teat sucking to me.

|6.18.09 @ 3:53PM|#

TAO, yeah, I know. it's me. Tens of millions of working folks cannot afford health insurance at almost any cost. What do we do with them? What of folks like myself? Injured at work and the comp carrier denied surgery that would possibly allow me to return to either work or school. That lack of service, which my employer pays the insurance to peovide, is why I now get a taxpayer funded check every month.

I don't know or understand what has driven the price of insurance to the point that many working people can't afford it. I know that them not having it is causing some real problems in the medical provider business. It is my opinion that this safety net is a necessary function of government. I do understand that our govt has a track record of completely mismanaging such things.

|6.18.09 @ 4:01PM|#

This is what I was trying to discuss the other day when I trotted out the marxist mantra of worker vs owner. There are some who have a valid reason for being unproductive. There are imo a shitload more that are riding the system. Some will suggest that I am as well. Wifey and I have some things in the works that are slowly making us more money. The goal being to make more money and become self sufficient again.

My marxist argument was that people require health care. If it isn't available in a cost effective manner through employment, they will turn to the govt which is certainly willing to promise said coverage in exchange for a vote.

|6.18.09 @ 4:05PM|#

I know that it isn't promised in the constitution. I also assume that nothing in the framework of this country provides for health care insurance as a function of the government. I believe however that it is a fundamental necessity in this country for the greater good of our economy.

Mike Laursen|6.18.09 @ 4:13PM|#

"Progressives need to stop worrying and learn to love taxes"

Don't they already?

Mr Cynical|6.18.09 @ 4:29PM|#

Gimlet, people like you are the reason these comments are annoying.....because you are a goddam idiot.
The quote you referenced....." I could sit back and milk the system, but I am not doing that. A person needs more than 5 days to find a job, and with the crappy severance packages these days, I have to find work soon."
Are you fucking retarded? Or can you just not understand English. Where did I say I need a hand out from anyone? The part where I said I need to find work soon?
I have been out of work 5 days. I have not even filed for unemployment yet. I said I am not going to milk the system even though I could. How is that teat sucking you fucking moron? If I find something soon, I will not even need to file for unemployment.....I am holding out as long as I can.
Now, go suck some dick you idiot.

Fascitis Necrotizante|6.18.09 @ 4:37PM|#

MC, weren't you gonna go find a job or something? Why are you still here?

And remember that a good, friendly attitude is crucial when you're trying to appeal to an employer.

Make sure you wash up and tuck in your shirt!

|6.18.09 @ 4:42PM|#

"This has always been the conundrum. Health insurance is simultaneously both a massive market failure (a moral hazard) and a necessity. No one has found a reasonable way to make this work without heavy government involvment. Our current system is a disaster."

What about simply making health insurance illegal? Force people to pay for their own medical care, and you actually eliminate the moral hazard, ranther than just shifting its source from insurance companies to the government. And this solution costs a lot less money, too.

Mr Cynical|6.18.09 @ 4:43PM|#

Facist, if I wanted to work at the gas station with you, I would drive down and apply. These high tech computers can be used to distribute resumes and search for jobs. It's amazing.....you should try to use them for more than posting comments and porn.
There are a shit load of software jobs out there, so this should not take too long.

|6.18.09 @ 4:54PM|#

Left-wing idiots have been spouting this kind of nonsense for a long time. I happen to own a songbook published in 1946 called "Sing a Song of Friendship," by Irving Caesar (whose more successful works include "Tea for Two"). There's a lot of competition for most gag-inducing song in the book, but my vote goes to "Tommy Tax," with the immortal lyrics:

Who pays our Forest Rangers
Who sleep in lonely shacks?
Who-oo? You-oo,
And little Tommy Tax;
Who pays our Lighthouse Keepers
Who never can relax?
Who-oo? You-oo,
And little Tommy Tax!
Poor Tommy Tax, poor Tommy Tax,
His bilsl are oh so many,
So ev'ryone should pay a tax,
For he needs ev'ry penny;
And who pays all our Teachers,
For teaching us these facts?
WHO? YOU!
And little TOMMY TAX!

Who pays our smiling Postman
For toting heavy sacks?
Who-oo? You-oo,
And little Tommy Tas;
Who buys for city Firemen
A ladder, hose and axe?
Who-oo? You-oo,
And little Tommy Tax;
It's only fair to do our share,
For Tommy isn't wealthy,
And ev'ry cent is really spent
To keep us free and healthy;
Who paid our loyal soldiers,
Who paid our Waves and Wacs?
WHO? YOU,
And little TOMMY TAX!

Randy Bottoms|6.18.09 @ 5:20PM|#

"Facist, if I wanted to work at the gas station with you, I would drive down and apply. These high tech computers can be used to distribute resumes and search for jobs. It's amazing....."

You spend 40/week looking for jobs via the Internet? Bullshit.

Mr Cynical|6.18.09 @ 5:31PM|#

Randy, did I say anywhere that I spend 40 / week on the internet job searching? I am looking.....no, wow, you guys are talented.
Also, it has not even been a full week since I got laid off, so I am not sure how many hours I will spend searching per week. I will let you know in a couple of days.
I need to find something fast, since I got laid off less than a week ago, but it is obviously a burden on the Facist, and now you, even though I have not even filed for unemployment.
I guess I need to quit applying for jobs that require resumes, and find the good ones that just need an application. You are my hero, even though I have paid my taxes for 24 years and have never collected a dime of unemployment in my life.

|6.18.09 @ 5:33PM|#

Alright, finally made it through this beast.


Fluffy, I really liked what you had to say about positive liberty (I think it may have been your first post, way at the top of the thread).

TAO, thanks for the hilarious commentary. Funny stuff, even if you are totally fucking brainwashed.


Now, just throwing this out there: my mother grew up in the projects, had her first kid at 17, her second at 19, but worked two jobs and went to college full time, fighting, as she was, for a better life. Today she runs the school she started working as an aide at. She's the straight-up boss lady. Meanwhile, two of her siblings are wastes of life, suckling off the government nipple.

A lot of people are just really lazy. True story.

Then, a few people just need a break; but I'm not convinced private charity can't be there for the few who do.

|6.18.09 @ 5:35PM|#

You are my hero, even though I have paid my taxes for 24 years and have never collected a dime of unemployment in my life.

Cynical, if you'e paid taxes that long, the money you'd get now, if you filed, would be yours. Take it back, I say. Robin Hood style.

Mr Cynical|6.18.09 @ 5:56PM|#

Solana, I really don't want the money unless I really need it.
This all started because I said not all unemployed and poor people are just lazy, and that not all wealthy people are hard workers.
I was laid off less than a week ago and now I am not supposed to find a decent job in my field, but instead should go work at McDonalds. So, I should not be on-line now, I should be driving around filling out applications, even though I can do this and post my resume at the same time.

Chad|6.18.09 @ 6:29PM|#

The Angry Optimist | June 18, 2009, 3:30pm | #
No, Chad, libertarian wishful thinking involves getting rid of the incentives that drive employer-based health insurance and let people shop for insurance like they do car insurance or home insurance.

And how will that prevent the over-consumption? It won't. Once I choose my insurance, I will have every incentive to consume consume consume. Again, it doesn't matter who pays for the insurance. ALL health insurance has this problem.

The thing that reduces the "moral hazard" of insurees is to let the insurance company handle it. If you are an overuser, you get dropped by the insurance company. Of course, you want to make that kind of thing illegal, so yeah, you've essentially made it one big moral hazard.

So now all the sick people get booted from their insurance, and of course, no one will insure someone who is already sick. Errr....wait....wasn't the whole point of insurance supposed to be protecting these people? This, at least, is one market failure that a single-payer system solves.

B|6.18.09 @ 6:30PM|#

If there is a dimmer bulb than Matthew Yglesias on the left, I don't think I ever recall seeing an article by that person.

B|6.18.09 @ 6:51PM|#

I think Tony has read one too many Charles Dickens novels.

Seriously, in some high tax locales, when you consider both Federal, state and local taxes, the top earners are paying as much to the government as they are keeping for themselves. Maybe I am naive, but when did forced economic servitude to the government become the yardstick for economic liberty?

Seriously, anyone who can castigate individuals for wanting to keep the fruits of their labor is a jackass. Why is it that the left seems to believe the individuals who are most dependent on the government contribute more than those who pay 40% of their income in taxes? Lionizing welfare recipients whilst labelling as greedy those who achieved success from hard work, ambition and initiative because they object to having even more of the fruits of their labor confiscated is profoundly wrong.

And why and the fuck would we want to emulate the basket case economies of France, England, Germany and Japan anyway?

B|6.18.09 @ 7:04PM|#

"It seems the Republicans are out in full force today on here. All poor people are lazy, all rich people are hard working."

It seems the Democrats are out in force today. All rich are trust fund babies and all poor are noble who are only in the situation they are in not because of bad decisions, but because some rich guy stole the money from their wallets.

And I would love to hear an explanation as to why, other than plain old-fashioned envy, inherited wealth should be subjected to such confiscatory tax rates. Seriously, the left wing morons on here make inherited wealth sound like the greatest evil in mankind's history.

B|6.18.09 @ 7:14PM|#

"Taxes let people take risks with their lives, guarantee a financially secure retirement..."

So in other words, it is my responsiblity to pick up the tab for someone else's lifestyle choices and it is my responsibility to ensure that someone who didn't save for his own retirement can be "financially secure" on my dime.

That is the problem with the left. One person's lifestyle choices are always the responsibility or fault of someone else.

Chad|6.18.09 @ 7:35PM|#

B | June 18, 2009, 6:51pm | #
I think Tony has read one too many Charles Dickens novels.

Seriously, in some high tax locales, when you consider both Federal, state and local taxes, the top earners are paying as much to the government as they are keeping for themselves.

Wrong. The top earners are making almost all their money as capital gains, which is taxed at a low rate, and often not at all at the state level. Their FICA payments are tiny relative to their income due to the $102000 cap, and their sales tax and use taxes are also trivial with respect to their income. Even if you include the corporate taxes that their share of whatever companies they own pay (which you should), their net tax rates are not anywhere near that high. It is difficult to know exactly how much, however, because the data isn't even collected.

|6.18.09 @ 8:22PM|#

There is no requirement that I participate in the census. In fact, I refuse to fully participate in the census, answering only the Constitutionally permitted question (how many people live here?).

Actually read the words in the Constitution about enumeration.

The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.

This can mean a lot.

I say F the FF's. They created a monster.

StartMakingSense|6.18.09 @ 9:16PM|#

Are you trying to say that social safety nets don't allow people to take more risks? And since social safety nets have to be paid for by taxes -- i have to ask what is that you have been smoking that you think that statement is false.

Okay, time to destroy the safety net/dynamism argument.
Take:
1. Your average Swede.
2. welfare mother, AnyCompton, USA
3. My neighbor from Long Island with the Upper Middle Class parents and Art History major who defaulted on her student loans.

All are beneficiaries of a welfare state/social safety net. Are any of these people, grading on a bell curb, anyone's idea of a risk taker?

The coddled don't become risk takers. There is not a single welfare state that put a premium value on risk taking. Socialist economies abhore risk. It is laughable to pretend otherwise.

StartMakingSense|6.18.09 @ 9:27PM|#

All are beneficiaries of a welfare state/social safety net. Are any of these people, grading on a bell curb, anyone's idea of a risk taker?


Before any snicker heads especially you Mr. Naif get any funny ideas, bell curb your enthusiasm, I have the sniffles today - 'v's sound like 'b's in phonetically challenged land between the ears.

|6.19.09 @ 3:05AM|#

Chad | June 18, 2009, 7:35pm | #
Wrong. The top earners are making almost all their money as capital gains, which is taxed at a low rate, and often not at all at the state level. Their FICA payments are tiny relative to their income due to the $102000 cap, and their sales tax and use taxes are also trivial with respect to their income. Even if you include the corporate taxes that their share of whatever companies they own pay (which you should), their net tax rates are not anywhere near that high. It is difficult to know exactly how much, however, because the data isn't even collected.

I hate to reply to this nonsense, but taxes on capital gains are taxes on investment. The only way someone makes a return on their investment is if the money invested makes more money. In the meantime, the money invested is put to work doing things like buying monacles, top hats, and $100 bills to light cigars.

Oh, wait, my bad, that money is put to work employing people. How silly of me.

|6.19.09 @ 12:40PM|#

Wrong. The top earners are making almost all their money as capital gains, which is taxed at a low rate, and often not at all at the state level. Their FICA payments are tiny relative to their income due to the $102000 cap, and their sales tax and use taxes are also trivial with respect to their income. Even if you include the corporate taxes that their share of whatever companies they own pay (which you should), their net tax rates are not anywhere near that high. It is difficult to know exactly how much, however, because the data isn't even collected.

Chad, you're wrong. First, we data regarding what percentage of tax payers pay the AMT. The AMT treats capital gains, including long term capital gains, the same as income. The AMT is roughly a flat tax with very little deductions and one lump exemption.

Participation in the AMT (meaning having to pay more under AMT than not) is much more common among those making $200k-$500k per year than those make $500k+, and especially than those making over $1 million. Currently, even those making $100k-$200k are more likely to pay AMT than those making over $500k. In fact, without changes, participation rates for those in the $200k-$500k range would be over 90%.

Thus, we can easily conclude that people making $200k-$500k, and even $100k-$200k, face a lower effective tax rate than those making over $500k. This is because the mortgage deduction has a limit, you can only take the mortgage deduction on one home instead of several, the child deduction phases out, etc., etc. The mortgage deduction plus child credit plus a few other deductions form a larger percentage of income than the deductions used by the very wealthy.

Wealth of Idiots|6.19.09 @ 1:08PM|#

I found that article nauseating. If only the 3rd world would start taxing their people they could reap all these amazing benefits too.