President Obama has announced his plan for reducing the deficit and it involves some of the cuts I mentioned in my previous post, but also, a promise of progressive taxation...
The president is likely to repeat his broad contention that he stands with middle-class Americans and believes the wealthy need to bear more of the burden of caring for the elderly and less fortunate, stances he says are reflected in his deficit plan.
On this point, Obama is in agreement with Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, Adam Smith and other supporters of a progressive taxation scheme.
According to these folk from our history...
“Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometric progression as they rise.”
~Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785
"The collection of taxes... has been as yet only by duties on consumption. As these fall principally on the rich, it is a general desire to make them contribute the whole money we want, if possible. And we have a hope that they will furnish enough for the expenses of government and the interest of our whole public debt, foreign and domestic."
~Thomas Jefferson to Comte de Moustier, 1790
"The rich alone use imported articles, and on these alone the whole taxes of the General Government are levied. ... Our revenues liberated by the discharge of the public debt, and its surplus applied to canals, roads, schools, etc., the farmer [ie, working class/poor] will see his government supported, his children educated, and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings."
~Thomas Jefferson to Thaddeus Kosciusko, 1811
"The great mass of the articles on which impost is paid is foreign luxuries, purchased by those only who are rich enough to afford themselves the use of them. Their patriotism would certainly prefer its continuance and application to the great purposes of the public education, roads, rivers, canals, and such other objects of public improvement as it may be thought proper to add to the constitutional enumeration of federal powers."
~Thomas Jefferson: 6th Annual Message, 1806
"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."
"the expense of defending the society, and that of supporting the dignity of the chief magistrate, are both laid out for the general benefit of the whole society. It is reasonable, therefore, that they should be defrayed by the general contribution of the whole society, all the different members contributing, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities..."
"When the toll upon carriages of luxury, upon coaches, post-chaises, &c. is made somewhat higher in proportion to their weight, than upon carriages of necessary use, such as carts, waggons, &c. the indolence and vanity of the rich is made to contribute in a very easy manner to the relief of the poor, by rendering cheaper the transportation of heavy goods to all the different parts of the country."
Adam Smith: Wealth of Nations
I've read repeatedly that both Thomas Paine and Ben Franklin were progressive taxation proponents. Although I was finding it more difficult to find good quotes. Here's one...
"...as a Tax, and perhaps the most equal of all Taxes, since it depreciated in the Hands of the Holders of the Money, and thereby taxed them in proportion to the Sums they hold and the Time they held it, which is generally in proportion to Mens Wealth."
~Benjamin Franklin to Thomas Ruston, October 9, 1780
All of these folk are just in support of the self-evident truism that those who have much can be expected to contribute much. In the words of Jesus, "From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked."
Now, of course, Jesus was not speaking of taxation. Rather, he was just uttering a reasonable truism, a point that is self-evident and obviously moral to probably most people today.
Some will try to complain, saying, "But Jefferson wasn't speaking of a progressive INCOME tax!" and he wasn't. But that does not change his clear intent (nor does it change that of his colleagues) in support of SOME sort of progressive taxation where proportionally more is paid for by those with more.
It's simply morally reasonable. Self-evident.
All of which to say that Obama is in good company and staking out a morally sound stand in desiring to see a progressive tax scheme. Those who would call it socialism are just being ridiculous. Those who call it "theft" are being duplicitous and ridiculous. Those who suggest it is anti-American are just un-informed.
IF someone wants to argue reasonably against it at all, they could suggest that, while progressive taxation can be a good thing, AT SOME POINT, it becomes too much. And then they could make that argument as to why they think Obama's level of progressive taxation is "too much," but I just don't see how anyone can reasonably argue against progressive taxation in general. Much less, if they are resorting to calling it names lilke "communism" or "theft," which it clearly isn't.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Obama and Jefferson
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
82 comments:
I often find these appeals (in whatever direction) to what Jefferson or Franklin said about topic X to be interesting in a historical sense, but completely unconvincing in a real, practical sense.
One of the great geniuses of the American Experiment is the opportunity, with every generation, to reinvent America. I suspect that several of the founding fathers would be horrified to see us bowing and scraping to a sentence or two describing their particular take on some topic X in the 1770's.
What they did was great, but they were just men, not Popes. But honestly, you'd think they were infallible the way people quote them sometimes.
Oftentimes when someone says, "But the founding fathers said..." I want to respond, "Yeah, and they're dead now. Can we please start to try to find some reasonable opinions from someone who isn't worm food?"
Just sayin'. Appeals to tradition don't convince me of much of anything.
Fair enough. I just like pointing out these sorts of quotes to people for whom "the founding fathers" opinions ARE significant.
Beyond that, I DO think that folk like Paine, Franklin and Jefferson, for all their faults, were astounding and especially wise human beings and I find value in finding wisdom throughout the ages.
Yeah, I get that.
But if their circumstances were completely different than ours, then their wisdom on Topic X is unlikely to be relevant.
That is, if someone wants to argue: Well, back in 1780, the country was going through X, and they dealt with it by doing Y, and it worked because of Z and we're going through the same or similar problem, then that's where experience and the wisdom of the past is useful, I think.
Otherwise, it's just some dead-white-guy-in-a-wig's opinion, no matter how wise they are on the matters of their particular time and place.
Plus everyone knows that folks in the 18th century were hammered much of the time. :)
Perhaps you could at least make one appeal to what ANY founder said that justifies the insipid notion that an opportunity was intended to be provided for every generation to "reinvent" America. I find that to be a very self-serving wish of those who wish to do just that to satisfy their personal agendas.
Actually, on this point, I am pretty much in agreement with Alan. Historically important, but irrelevant. Jefferson's vision of an agrarian, Athenian-style democracy writ large is irrelevant to our urban, industrial, multi-cultural society. The notion that we can lasso any person from history to endorse our personal political preferences, even Jesus, is dangerous as well as impossible. How can anyone know what a person long since dead, who lived, perhaps, in a completely different society with a completely different set of assumptions, etc., might think about this or that contemporary matter?
Art: "Perhaps you could at least make one appeal to what ANY founder said that justifies the insipid notion that an opportunity was intended to be provided for every generation to "reinvent" America. I find that to be a very self-serving wish of those who wish to do just that to satisfy their personal agendas."
Thus he denies the entire social and political project of America.
"Perhaps you could at least make one appeal to what ANY founder said that justifies the insipid notion...yapyapyyapyap."
LOL That is the best possible response you could have written. ROFL.
Seriously, thanks for great laugh, I'm in the middle of writing an exam and I totally needed it.
Here are a few more Jefferson quotes. In a very sharp contrast to Obama, Jefferson called for a limited government:
Still one thing more, fellow-citizens--a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities. -- First Inaugural Address
On unequal taxation being unjust:
Whether property alone, and the whole of what each citizen possesses, shall be subject to contribution, or only its surplus, after satisfying his first wants, or whether the faculties of body and mind shall contribute from their annual earnings, is a question to be decided. But when decided, and the principle settled, it is to be equally and fairly applied to all. To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers' has acquired too much, in order to spare others who, or whose fathers has not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "the guarantee to everyone of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it." -- Note in Destutt Tracy's Political Economy
Taxes on consumption like those on capital and income, to be just, must be uniform. -- Letter to Samuel Smith
Anyway, since the justice of a progressive or a regressive or even a flat income tax is challenged, may I propose that we simply eliminate the income tax altogether? This way, the argument becomes irrelevant and we can debate other topics.
Speaking of the American Experiment, I'm going to try an experiment of my own:
1+1=2
Your turn, MA.
Jefferson also was against paper money. So we should be too!
If you'd like to dispose of your paper money, gentlemen, please let me know and I can give you an address where you can send all of it. :)
The Constitution calls for a dual-metallic currency system, too. Except, in practice, it was unworkable. The gold standard, which so many on the right think is marvelous, was ended because it was manifestly incapable of dealing with the stresses of a modern, internationally integrated economy. The British started moving away from it at the beginning of the Second World War, the US a few years before, but American currency only became completely devalued - which is the technical term for unhooking the value of a currency from gold - in the early-1970's, although the Bretton-Woods agreement after WWII was a kind of de facto international devaluation.
Those who insist we should revert to a dual mettalic system, or even the gold standard should be the ones who suffer the consequences should we do it.
Geoffrey,
"Thus he denies the entire social and political project of America."
...is a great non-answer. Why not try thisone instead: If you don't know, I'm certainly not going to tell you.
The idea of "reinventing" America should each passing generation so choose is goofy. Did the founders envision future generations overturning the basic tenets of the Constitution if they so chose to reinvent America in that manner? What are the limitations, if any, on such a notion? The peoples' desires? It alone isn't sufficient from turning the nation back to the very thing the nation was created to change and escape.
If you want to say that each citizen is free to reinvent himself, I could concede that (to a certain extent, anyway). But to reinvent America? Nonsense. There is no basis for this that you can present from anything the founders ever said. It's just leftist pablum.
Art: "Did the founders envision future generations overturning the basic tenets of the Constitution if they so chose to reinvent America in that manner? What are the limitations, if any, on such a notion? The peoples' desires? It alone isn't sufficient from turning the nation back to the very thing the nation was created to change and escape."
Sure they envisioned it. It's called the amendment process. Besides, since the Civil War amendments both reflected and amplified various social and cultural changes, the whole nature of the American social contract was altered, in particular by the 14th Amendment.
By all means, let's go back to 1788, to horses and buggies, to bleeding people with leeches to treat fevers, to mercantilism and slavery and women as property. Let's remove all but the 14 states of the union at the time, have the Electoral College pick the President after deliberating on it (rather than beholden to the votes of the electorate, as is legally the case now), and while we're at it, all those miles of canals and railroads built with the assistance of federal legislation promoting them - fill 'em in and rip 'em up.
Of course the founders didn't want America to reinvent itself, Geoffrey.
Which is why MA believes only white male landowners should be able to vote.
You know, no where in the constitution does it say that people who happen to procreate should get a tax deduction.
So anyone of you that claim such a deduction, once you get your money back, could you please send it to me for safe-keeping?
Because I'm sure you vaunted ideals wouldn't ever allow you to claim such an unconstitutional deduction and keep the money, right?
And why is it that everyone who claims that income taxes are unconstitutional still pays them? Just stop paying. It's unconstitutional, so clearly you'll win when you get your day in court.
Go ahead. If you *actually* believe what you're saying, put your money where your mouth is!
I actually wrote a post today on the whole "the income tax is unconstitutional!" nonsense. I have met some Friends (Quakers) who have either calculated the percentage of their tax bill dedicated to military action and deducted that portion as conscientious objectors, or simply refused to pay any taxes since any of their money could go to efforts to kill other human beings. They do not whine or complain when they are prosecuted or sentenced, they merely refuse, on principle, to make the payments and suffer the consequences with the peace of mind that they, at least, are not contributing to the deaths of other human beings.
Alan...
if their circumstances were completely different than ours, then their wisdom on Topic X is unlikely to be relevant.
I think this would actually relate back to some of our biblical discussions. When they are espousing sound TRUTHS (founding fathers, Bible, whoever), then those TRUTHS are valid and wise and good. But, where they are espousing a particular action related to a particular time and place, then it's not a given that the same action would be a good idea today.
Love one another? Love your wife/husband? Treat your family with respect? Those who have much have obligations to give much back?
Sound and everlasting wisdom.
Women are chattel and their fathers can tell them who to wed or who to bed? It's okay to own slaves? The one right way to tax is to have a sales tax on luxury imports that only the rich will buy?
Temporal, time-specific solutions which may or may not have on-going values.
Our trouble, seems to me, would be mixing up the two.
Dan,
"Those who have much have obligations to give much back?"
Says who? "To whom much is given, much is expected" is, as I've stated in past discussions, God's expectation and is between Him and each of us only. It is not something that anyone can force from another. The idea of giving back would make sense if not for the fact that what people earn has not been given to them. And as we know from countless discussions on the subject, the top earners are paying the lion's share of the taxes as it is. That actually grew after tax rates were lowered.
And again, I am still astounded that someone who refuses to seek and attain great wealth has the gall to call for more taxes on those who have put in the time, effort, money and risk to achieve. Most such people could pay half the tax rate and still contribute more to the gov't coffers just due to the amount they make.
If you want to encourage people to donate more to the gov't or charitable destinations, by all means, do so. But to take from other people what you don't have the will to acquire on your own, and then pretend you're proposing a noble suggestion is shameful.
""When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another...""
THAT'S your proof that the founders intended to provide an opportunity for future generations to reinvent America? That you dare suppose you are superior somehow to so easily condescend, and then offer THAT to support your position...and you think irony is lost on me. Incredible. Of course that line speaks of the provocation for declaring independence from England.
The founders had a vision for America that needed to remain intact for future generations' benefit. To reinvent America destroys that vision of what they felt America should and could be. To reinvent it would mean it no longer is what they founded.
"Sure they envisioned it. It's called the amendment process."
Oh, really? So you're saying they envisioned the possibility of future generations forsaking representation regarding taxation, for example? I doubt it.
I honestly have no idea where the following came from: "So you're saying they envisioned the possibility of future generations forsaking representation regarding taxation, for example? I doubt it."
First, who has forsaken representation regarding taxation? Second, as a practical matter, maybe not, but they obviously provided a mechanism whereby it is quite possible that such could be enacted - again, it's called the Amendment process. The 17th amendment fundamentally alters the idea of representation by providing for direct election of US Senators, rather than appointment via the state legislature. Prior to this, the Senate was the place where the STATES were represented. Afterward, it was and continues to be the people of the states, a whole different ballgame.
Our country is so different in so many ways from Jefferson's America, I find it difficult to find anything relevant in his views, except perhaps a vague acceptance of the general principles of the Declaration of Independence, that the US had grievances against the British Crown and had the right to separate from it. Beyond that, since this was a guy who considered his female slaves "breeding stock" no different from cattle, he is an unattractive figure to me.
Oh, and the Louisiana Purchase was probably unconstitutional as well, but as it was never challenged in court and the French probably don't want their money or land back, we're stuck with it.
"THAT'S your proof that the founders intended to provide an opportunity for future generations to reinvent America?"
Yup, pretty much. I'm sure you've never read it, so I thought I'd make sure you had the opportunity. That you don't understand what you read is simply the usual state of affairs for you and doesn't surprise me in the least.
"But to take from other people what you don't have the will to acquire on your own, and then pretend you're proposing a noble suggestion is shameful."
So I assume you don't take any available tax credits for your various lifestyle choices, like procreation, for example? Your children's education is not supported by tax dollars from people who themselves do not have children in school?
"To reinvent it would mean it no longer is what they founded."
So? They're dead. They don't live here any more.
As genius as their invention was and is, it isn't sacred. The constitution isn't Holy Writ.
That you're yet another phony conservative adherent to American Civil Religion doesn't surprise me either.
I missed this: "To reinvent it would mean it no longer is what they founded."
Um, duh? Of course it isn't! It was never intended to stay the same, which is why there's the whole amendment thing, the whole adding states thing, the whole allowing legislation to pass thing.
Geoffrey,
"I honestly have no idea where the following came from:"
It came from the wacky notion that "One of the great geniuses of the American Experiment is the opportunity, with every generation, to reinvent America."
If that is true, then it is logical to assume that includes revinventing the country to become the very thing which compelled us to separate from England.
"Our country is so different in so many ways from Jefferson's America..."
Well, we can certainly agree on THIS. But to whether or not it is different in a good way is subject for another post.
What you two libs want to believe "stay the same" means is likely as different as most issues you choose to distort. Was the amendment process meant to further the ideals of the founders they intended America should represent, or to allow lefty chuckleheads to distort the nation into becoming something that would make them puke? I'm going with the former.
"That you don't understand what you read is simply the usual state of affairs for you and doesn't surprise me in the least."
This if funny coming from you who damn well knows what things say and willfully and consciously bend it to mean what you'd prefer it says. I'm well aware of the what the D of I says and means. YOU suggest that opening means something else simply because you say it does. But you don't offer anything but your worthless word to back it up.
"So I assume you don't take any available tax credits for your various lifestyle choices, like procreation, for example? Your children's education is not supported by tax dollars from people who themselves do not have children in school?"
Again, you dare condescend and accuse me of not understanding what I read. Dan suggests taxing the wealthy in a progressive manner. Easy for him to do. But he refuses to exert any energy to become one of those he wishes to so burden.
In the meantime, there's a big difference between that and taking advangate of existing law. I've never crapped on anyone taking advantage of food stamps, for example, since they are available. I do, however, dispute the wisdom of providing them. It would be foolish for someone who qualifies for any program to refuse to take advantage, especially if their need is dire and/or the result is rising out of the situation in which they find themselves. Furthermore, I have never acted to institute or retain any of the tax advantages of which I am now able to avail myself. Should those paths be closed to me, I would provide for myself as I do in other areas. What's more, I already contribute through my own taxes and am not asking wealthier people to pay a higher percentage simply because they have achieved through their own efforts what I have not.
Any more stupid questions?
"That you're yet another phony conservative adherent to American Civil Religion doesn't surprise me either."
I'm an adherent to a proper and legitimate understanding of the founders' intentions, which to me is second in importance to my proper and legitimate understanding of Scripture. How nice it would be if you were as well.
Addressing the actual post, I wonder where Dan gets "progressive" from "generally in proportion to Mens Wealth", which you emboldened. Proportion is an equal amount in terms of percentage. That means flat tax. It seems, based on what you've presented and other quick google finds, that Franklin was suggesting equal amounts from all is unjust. That is, poor and rich alike paying, say, ten dollars. Ten percent would be proportion.
Jefferson does, however, speak of the rich perhaps paying more than a proportional amount, but, as John shows, he seemed a bit undecided on the issue.
Of course the real issue is the reason to tax at all. Is it to support the purposes of the federal gov't alone, or to supply the favored programs of some?
The progressive income tax is based on the completely clear idea that a person earning $20,000 a year is, relatively speaking, in more difficult straits regarding a ten percent tax, than someone earning $200,000. It is fairer to ask of someone earning $200,000 to pay more because, relative to overall income, a higher percentage is less of a burden.
It is manifestly unfair to ask someone who earns $50,000 - the median household income in the US - to pay the same percentage of their income in taxes, as an individual or family who earns three times that amount because, relative to overall income, purchasing power, etc., it is a greater absolute burden.
Flat taxes - sales taxes, the Social Security/Medicare tax, to name just a couple - are known as regressive taxes because they burden people of lower incomes far more, relative to overall income. This idea, which I was taught in high school in economics 101, is simple enough to understand, and is at the heart of our income tax code. Furthermore, it strikes most people as far more fair to ask people who earn more money to pay a larger portion of their income in taxes because, simply put, they can afford to do so.
Art: "Was the amendment process meant to further the ideals of the founders they intended America should represent, or to allow lefty chuckleheads to distort the nation into becoming something that would make them puke?"
Again, I have no idea what this means, unless you honestly believe we should have retained, say, property requirements for the vote, no women's suffrage, no African American citizenship or vote even if they were emancipated, a polity of gentlemen farmers without roads, with few canals, and certainly no railroads, let alone an interstate highway system.
The expansion of the franchise, the support of the federal government for internal improvements to assist in expansion, greater democratization, are all reflective of social, cultural, and technological changes in the two and a quarter centuries since the ratification of the Constitution. Whether or not they would make the founders "puke" is a question no one can answer. From the Louisiana Purchase, through the election of Andrew Jackson to the Civil War, the first seventy-five years of our national life revolved around matters of national integration and modernization. The Civil War settled the matter, by and large, in favor of more democracy, a more integrated polity, and a more muscular approach to supporting growth. Between the Civil War and the Depression, the big debates centered on urbanization, industrialization, immigration, and reflecting social changes through the political and legislative processes. Again, the income tax, a more democratic US Senate, prohibition, and women's suffrage emerged to reflect the general sense of those times. Since then, the changes have been limited to matters of Presidential succession and extending the franchise by lowering the voting age requirement, again, both reflective of social and technological changes.
I'm not sure what about this would make the Founders "puke", Art. The biggest changes happened after the Civil War and incorporated the results of that conflict in to the Constitution. Beyond that, I'm still at a loss as to what you are complaining about. Why is it right-wingers hate the US Constitution so much?
"Furthermore, it strikes most people as far more fair to ask people who earn more money to pay a larger portion of their income in taxes because, simply put, they can afford to do so."
Then that indicates a distinct decline in the attititudes of Americans that any would see fit to ask of anyone else for anything. So much for the independent spirit. What is fair about asking of another anything? Simple mathematics shows that a person making 200,000 per year is already paying more in tax than a person making 50K if they're both paying the same percentage. Fair is adjusting one's lifestyle so as to accomodate one's obligation to support their country without burdening people they don't even know. Fair is a government that lives within its means, doing only that it is granted by the Consitution to do. You don't start spending money on things and then demand people to give you more money to pay for them, daring to speak of what is a fair amount.
Marshall, I suspect you're in the minority on this point. Jefferson, Franklin, Paine and I suspect most Americans see the basic human justice involved in expecting those with the most to pay NOT just more at a same rate, but proportionately more. To whom much has been given, much is expected is a self evident human truth.
And so, as a result, most middle class taxpayers (like me) gladly pay a higher proportion of our moneys in taxation and those with more than average oftentimes will gladly concede that they should pay more, in increasing proportion as their wealth increases. It's just common sense justice.
10% of $10,000 is not as easily done as 10% of $100,000 and that's not as easily done as 10% of $1,000,000. It's obvious, I suspect, to most people.
Perfect equality is not always perfect justice or fairness.
"To whom much has been given, much is expected is a self evident human truth."
No it isn't. It's a liberal mantra meant to guilt other people into doing what they won't do themselves. And as I said earlier, it's an expectation that only God can possess. From you it's coveting. From a gov't it's force and an unjust confiscation of the property of its citizens.
If we start from the poor side of the equation, to forgive their debt to society isn't justice, it's charity. I can live with charity by the willing desire to be charitable. But justice is for the poor to adjust their lifestyle to the income they are able to obtain. It is not to demand from others. Nor is it justice for YOU to demand that others do for the poor what you yourself won't do, and then pretend you're noble for demanding it.
I'll say it again: If you're talking about encouraging charity from those who are well off, I'm all for it. Soliciting donations for worthy causes is a fine endeavor. But if you're talking about forcing money from those who are well off just because YOU think they should, that's covetous theft, whether you take it by gun point or legislated tax increases.
And I'll say this again as well: YOU, Dan Trabue, are the worst and most shameful example of this, for you support this squeezing of someone else's wallet while doing nothing to expand your own.
As to this: "...those with more than average oftentimes will gladly concede that they should pay more..."
I'm not impressed. No one's stopping them from sending in twice what the IRS says they should, least of all the IRS. IF they really think they should, then they damned well ought to and just shut up. Why don't you? You're rich! You say so all the time. You shouldn't have a dime of surplus funds if that's the way you feel. Or just double your own tax rate and leave other peoples' money alone.
No it isn't. It's a liberal mantra meant to guilt other people into doing what they won't do themselves.
You offer up some fine, whimsical and utterly unsupported and false hunches there, bubba, but, given their capricious-ness and obviously ridiculous nature of the lightweight false charges, I hope you don't mind if I laugh them away?
You're welcome to your hunches all day, Marshall. You'd have to provide some support for such silliness, though, if you'd like to be taken seriously.
Please remember, Art, that the Pledge of Allegiance states the twin ideals of the United States as represented by the flag as liberty and justice. Freedom without justice is anarchy. Justice without freedom doesn't exist and becomes tyranny. Balancing them is always tricky, and never final. All the same, the progressive income tax, among other things, balances the two quite well.
As it stands now, our economic system is totally out of joint. There is a certain maximum liberty - to achieve vast amounts of wealth - unbalanced by any sense of justice. At the heart of the complaints over regulation of the financial sector is the belief that regulations unduly burden those who wish to see a potentially extremely high rate of return on investment (make a whole lot of money). Yet, I cannot imagine anyone arguing that there is a guarantee of freedom to pursue high income at the expense of endangering the entire economic structure of the country. Yet, that is what happened. The "liberty" to make extravagant amounts of money was unbalanced by any sense of justice regarding the potential hazards to others.
Dan wrote:
To whom much has been given, much is expected is a self evident human truth.
One unproven assumption of this principle is that much was given to a person in the first place -- as opposed to, say, the person earning wealth through voluntary exchange.
Geoffrey,
"All the same, the progressive income tax, among other things, balances the two quite well."
Says those who don't make the big bucks. [There is a movement (much like bowel), complete with their own website, of rich dudes who think their taxes should be higher. I haven't visited it, but I've heard one of the founders interviewed and I didn't get the sense that he routinely sends more than his tax accountants say he owes.]
Justice means proportion. The problem isn't in what we pay in taxes, it's what the federal gov't does with the money. You seek relief from their mistakes by compounding them by squeezing those who have achieved more success than you, as if you have any right to what they have achieved. It is NOT justice. It is covetousness and class envy.
"Yet, I cannot imagine anyone arguing that there is a guarantee of freedom to pursue high income at the expense of endangering the entire economic structure of the country."
And no one does. But the danger is imagined to one extent and misunderstood to another. A person achieving success in a morally responsible way hurts no one. To assume every successful person is hurting anyone or the economy is more class envy and covetousness, as well as an unChristian judgement of one's fellow man.
And any damage done cannot be said to be caused simply by another's achievement of success. The only possible way one can state that another's success was a "hazard" to another is by virtue of the fact that the first guy is competition for the next. Boo-hoo.
I do not support or condone wealth creation by unethical or immoral means. That should go without saying.
But it seems that in the eyes of progressive tax supporters, that's the only way it can be done. Otherwise there can be no talk of justice that isn't based on pure envy rather than actual harm done by the successful.
"Justice" and "progressive taxation" are not cut from the same cloth.
To which, I might add, saying otherwise is about as whimsical and capricious as one could be.
And yet, those STILL remain some fine wild-ass whimsical hunches that you are welcome to but given your utter lack of support for them, you'll have to excuse us if we just ignore/laugh away your demonstrably false charges, misrepresentations and hopelessly naive hunches.
On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple courts and began driving out those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves, and would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts.
And as he taught them, he said, “Is it not written: ‘My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations’? But you have made it ‘a den of robbers.’”
The chief priests and the teachers of the law heard this and began looking for a way to kill him...
~Jesus, on Confrontation Monday
On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple courts and began driving out those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves, and would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts.
I love this passage. Whenever people tell me that it's improper to confront corruption in the Church (these are offline, rather than online conversations, and not related to this comment thread), I whack them over the head with this and other scenes of Jesus confronting religious authorities.
Jesus was a total badass and had no place for cowards in his crew.
Art, I really wonder. You are a birther, a creationist, a global warming denier, you demonstrate an almost comical ignorance of science in general, and now you seem to think all these rich people want a flat tax because it's more fair for everyone.
If you really, honestly believe all these things, how can any of us engage on any level of seriousness with you? I have a personal policy not to "debate" issues about which no actual debate exists, and you manage to cover the lot. How is it possible to have a conversation with someone who holds political and social views that are the equivalent of taking Santa Claus in to account for the GDP?
Santa Claus is outsourcing American jobs to the North Pole. We should charge him import fees.
John...
I love this passage. Whenever people tell me that it's improper to confront corruption in the Church (these are offline, rather than online conversations, and not related to this comment thread), I whack them over the head with this...
As long as you remember the last line of this passage...
The chief priests and the teachers of the law heard this and began looking for a way to kill him.
Nowadays, though, we don't tend to kill the bearers of such news, at least not in our country. It's easier to just demonize them, call them covetous, communist, socialists and other similar false charges.
Marshall, I'm curious: Do you REALLY think that everyone who is supportive of a progressive tax scheme in the name of justice, if they are ALL actually covetous? Or is that a falsehood just about those modern folk you deem political liberals?
Do you think that Jefferson was covetous?
these fall principally on the rich, it is a general desire to make them contribute the whole money we want...
the farmer [ie, working class/poor] will see his government supported, his children educated, and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone...
Do you think Jefferson was covetous?
Since it's tax day, and without revealing too much, I will just say that our joint tax returns have our income well above the median. It's kind of surprising, actually, to see those numbers and think, "Wow, we made that much?"
So, not only do I not covet the money of other people, I am more than a little embarrassed by the amount of money we do earn. Furthermore, paying a bit more in taxes, since we earn more seems fair enough to me. We are hardly rich - we aren't in that one-percent cohort, but are income does put us in a distinct minority - but we could afford more, so why not?
I have no problem paying my fair share either. I've never cheated on my taxes (even though our particular tax situation is byzantine in the extreme due to the bigoted tax laws of this country.) I've never voted against raising a school millage (I've got the money and I'm happy to pay for good schools, even though I'll never have kids in school.)
And given that I'm "single" and don't have little deductions running around the house, I'm certainly paying more than a similar person in my position with kids. In fact, I'm paying for their tax credit.
(Not to mention the various charities we donate generously to support and, of course, our church.)
So the notion that we "libs" just want to tell other people how to spend their money because we don't spend our own is absurd. But what else would you expect from MA?
I used to think, of his Amerikkkan Descenter cronies, he was one of the more reasonable of the bunch (though that's not saying much). MA thinks we "libs" never admit when we're wrong, but obviously I was wrong about that.
Dan asked me (right after comparing himself to Christ),
"Do you REALLY think that everyone who is supportive of a progressive tax scheme in the name of justice, if they are ALL actually covetous?"
First of all, you can call for anything "in the name of justice" if you want. Doesn't make it just, and doesn't mean I'm gonna bite on that crap sandwich. It ain't justice just because you call it so, and even if you truly believe it is justice to squeeze someone else of their hard earned cash, it is still coveting their dough, it is still class envy. Keep your mits off of other peoples' cabbage.
All this is is those who, for whatever reason (mostly laziness, idiocy and goofy ideas about simple living) haven't reached the levels of success that those 1 percenters have ganging up on them to force money from them for problems the majority have brought upon themselves. I say this from the perspective of one who doesn't assume a wealthy man has f**ked someone over to get rich. It wouldn't be Christian of me to make such an assumption. Thus, to pretend there is some injustice that must be remedied by forcing people I don't even know to cough up money, as if they are guilty of something, is something that I just can't bring myself as a Christian to do. Again, if I believe I could get well to do people to contribue to a cause, I will solicit donations. That's all I can reasonably and JUSTLY do.
"Do you think that Jefferson was covetous?"
I think you totally misunderstand both he and Franklin. Paine I'm not so sure about. I believe he was up for some kind of progressive taxation, but quotes offered by Jefferson that you purposely avoid resolving (funny you would do that) suggest that a progressive tax on income would definitely be something he would oppose.
Geoffrey,
"Art, I really wonder. You are a birther, a creationist, a global warming denier, you demonstrate an almost comical ignorance of science in general, and now you seem to think all these rich people want a flat tax because it's more fair for everyone."
And you're a buffoon who chooses to see what you want to see when faced with a better argument that foils your leftist yearnings. I am NOT a birther. I think Obama should cut the crap and present his BC. Why won't he? I am not a creationist. I am undecided about the age of the earth and have only stated that I believe my God, the God of the Bible, is capable of creating everything in the blink of a lefty's eye, the same eye that sees the universe as a gazillion years old because it's an imperfect human eye with limited capabilities for measuring the miraculous. I do not deny global warming. I deny the reason put forth by Gore-ons like you. You have not shown that my knowledge of science is in any way comical, though you need it to be so so as to avoid resolving the holes in your arguments. And finally, I never said anything about any rich guy wanting a flat tax because it's more fair for everyone. I myself have stated it is the most fair because it IS fair. No one pays more than anyone else percentage-wise. That's called "fair". Yet while everyone is paying their truly fair share, the wealthy are still, as always, going to be paying the lion's share of the total revenues to the state, just as they are now. (There are some rich who favor a flat tax, of course. I believe Forbes does, for example. Others would prefer a fair tax. But whiney liberal chuckleheads seek a progressive tax as if they are forced to pay less than THEY think they should be. Idiots.)
"I have a personal policy not to "debate" issues about which no actual debate exists..."
How very Gore-like of you. That's called "cowardice". What is more accurate, is that you miss the point being made and find yourself debating something that isn't even at issue, such as, whether or not 2ndhand smoke is bad for you.
"How is it possible to have a conversation with someone who holds political and social views that are the equivalent of taking Santa Claus in to account for the GDP?"
I don't know. When you come across someone like that, let me know how it goes. Got any more ad hominem, straw man crap to throw my way?
"I am more than a little embarrassed by the amount of money we do earn."
How very Phil Donahugh of you. Don't be an idiot. Earning a lot of money is nothing in the least about which to be embarrassed. Making a lot even less so. But hey! Feel free to send your surplus to Uncle Sam. It's called putting your money where your mouth is.
Marshall, I don't know how you can read the whole of Jefferson's comments such as this...
the farmer [ie, working class/poor] will see his government supported, his children educated, and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings.
...and NOT find a progressive tax ideal there. HE WANTED THE BULK OF GOV'T MONEYS TO COME FROM THE RICH. That is "progressive taxation" by definition.
Further, you call all of us who support this just notion "covetous" and "class warriors," when we do NOT, in fact, covet anyone's money and are not, in fact, any more "class warriors" than the Apostle James who said, "Is it not the rich among you who oppress you?" Pointing to the trappings of wealth is not the same as coveting it or being a class warrior.
You don't seem to understand or either deliberately distort the meanings of words to suit your political ends and that is why it is difficult to hold a conversation with you.
I quote Jesus and you call me "socialist." I quote a call for progressive taxation from the founders and you say THEY'RE not covetous but I am, even though that word does not apply.
What you COULD legitimately say (you would still be wrong, I think, but you could reasonably say this and not sound whimsical and irrational), "Dan, to think that progressive taxation is an issue of justice is a mistake, and here's why..." THAT would at least be a comment within the realm of rational.
But to suggest that someone like your brothers and sisters here are COVETING someone else's stuff, when we obviously are not, well, it just makes you sound like either a liar or a fruitcake.
I invite you to try to take a more rational approach to conversation, not the emotionally-charged and whimsical approach you too often engage in.
Marshall...
I think you totally misunderstand both he and Franklin.
So then, complete this sentence:
When Jefferson said...
Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometric progression as they rise.
and...
As these fall principally on the rich, it is a general desire to make them contribute the whole money we want...
and...
the farmer [ie, working class/poor] will see his government supported, his children educated, and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings...
He was NOT advocating some means of the rich paying geometrically more, or MOST, even, of the taxes. he was...
Can you complete that sentence in some way as to make a rational case that Jefferson was NOT speaking of progressive taxation? I don't see how, but you could try to make the case if you wanted to. You certainly haven't thus far.
Personally, I love that you all are doing exactly what I said you'd do in my very first comment: Arguing about the opinions of a guy who has been worm food for almost 200 years.
Look up "appeal to tradition" in the dictionary of logical fallacies.
This newsflash just in!!! Jefferson dead for 185 years!! His opinions on proper dental hygiene being questioned for the first time!!
(And that you proof text Jefferson with the same zeal that the wingnut fundies prooftext the Bible or anything else is pretty sad.)
I wonder if you have actually ever read Jefferson, actually read anything written by him? Or is your great and deep respect for him demonstrated by your bumper-sticker quotes and pedantic analysis?
If you're going to make a pathetic appeal to tradition, you should, it seems to me, at least demonstrate some level of actual understanding of that tradition.
But to appeal to tradition with one breath and then mock it with your simple prooftexting... Well I suppose you *can* do that. But you really shouldn't.
Dan,
Your understanding of Jefferson's meaning is in conflict with the Jefferson quotations offered by John Farrier on 4/14 @ 2:54. Go back and review them and then tell me that Jefferson sought progressive taxation.
In the same way, you "quote" Jesus, but misapply His meanings as you do so much of Scripture. Christ never insisted that YOU or anyone else should force another to pony up more cash, and he would call you specifically a hypocrite for doing so while avoiding any attempt to increase your own wealth so as to provide for that which you hope the wealthy will pay.
"while avoiding any attempt to increase your own wealth"
You don't have a job, Dan? You give away all your money to charity?
Again, MA just (barely) strings words together into configurations that have no meaning.
It is not cowardice, Art, to refuse to argue with someone who believes the earth is the center of the universe. It is not cowardice to refuse to grant any intellectual credibility to someone who insists that time travelers from the 28th century actually run our world. I wouldn't "argue" with anyone who attempted to prove these points to me.
In similar fashion, I don't argue with creationists, Holocaust deniers, or birthers. It isn't cowardice to refuse to grant to a false premise any truth by treating it as something worth discussing. This does not mean that such people should be silenced, or not speak up. They can enter whatever public discussions they want. More power to 'em. Don't expect this individual to grant them anything like respectability, or even the veneer of acceptability.
If you want to believe in the political equivalent of the Easter Bunny, go for it. Don't expect me to say anything other than, "Wow. You really believe that?", however, when you try to convince me the Easter Bunny exists.
Great, Geoffrey. Thanks for opening that can of worms. Now we get to see MA argue for 200 comments that the Easter Bunny exists because he saw it on a website somewhere.
Alan...
Look up "appeal to tradition" in the dictionary of logical fallacies.
I think that, in a discussion about whether or not being in favor of a progressive tax = covetousness, to ask Marshall if Jefferson's comments in support of progressive taxation means he was covetous, too, is a legitimate question. The point being that there are now and have always been many folk who favor a progressive tax scheme and who have done so for reasons of justice, NOT for covetousness. So, I was checking to see if Marshall thought that Jefferson was being covetous or that James was being a class warrior when they made such comments. Since Marshall supposedly values the opinions and ideals of James and Jefferson, I think it is a legitimate question.
I'm not saying what Jefferson would advocate today. I'm merely pointing out that he, too, seemed to at least at times be clearly in favor of a progressive tax scheme.
Do you read those comments and think he WASN'T in favor of a progressive tax scheme, at least at the time and in that context?
And yes, Alan, I have read much of Jefferson's writings. Like I have read the Bible and other ancient thinkers' opinions. I think there is great value in finding wisdom throughout the ages. I'm not sure what you're objecting to.
I'm not saying, "Jefferson said x, therefore that is proof positive that we ought to have a progressive income tax today with exemptions for A, B and C." I'm merely pointing out to Marshall that people throughout the ages and through today have supported progressive tax schemes and done so for noble reasons, not for sinful ones, as Marshall falsely charges.
Marshall...
Your understanding of Jefferson's meaning is in conflict with the Jefferson quotations offered by John Farrier on 4/14 @ 2:54. Go back and review them and then tell me that Jefferson sought progressive taxation.
Clearly at some point, Jefferson supported progressive taxation. You could recognize that John's quotes are as in apparent conflict with my quotes as vice versa. Who says we have to make "my" quotes subservient to "John's" quotes?
Could be different times in his life he held different opinions. Could be the context of John's would clarify it further.
How do you explain away the obvious progressive tilt in "my" quotes? Or do you just say (as you do so often with the Bible), "I like THESE quotes better, therefore, I'll do any gymnastics necessary to make the OTHER quotes fit in with makes me most comfortable...?"
“Ordinary people just drive on the highways; corporations send fleets of trucks. Ordinary people may get a bank loan for their mortgage; corporations borrow money to buy whole companies. Ordinary people rarely use the courts; most of the courts are used for corporate law and contract disputes. Corporations and their investors — those who have accumulated enough money beyond basic needs so they can invest — make much more use, compound use, of the empowering infrastructure provided by everybody’s tax money.
The wealthy have made greater use of the common good—they have been empowered by it in creating their wealth—and thus they have a greater moral obligation to sustain it. They are merely paying their debt to society in arrears and investing in future empowerment.
This is the fundamental truth that motivates progressive taxation.”
-Warren Buffet, Covetous One and Class Warrior
Alan...
I wonder if you have actually ever read Jefferson, actually read anything written by him?
I will say that I'm not as familiar with his writings as I ought to be. I've read a good many letters of his and other commentary, but I'd be interested in hearing a more well-researched commentary on Jefferson and the other founders on topics like taxation than what I've found thus far.
It sure sounds like, from what I've read, that Paine (especially - who seemed at times to border on socialist), Jefferson and Franklin were all pretty progressive (at times at least) when it came to money matters, as well as some of the others.
Do you have any sources for such research?
"Ordinary people just drive on the highways; corporations send fleets of trucks."
Which are driven by ordinary people to support their families. Corporations can pay them because of the business that employs them.
"Ordinary people may get a bank loan for their mortgage; corporations borrow money to buy whole companies."
Which employ ordinary people so that they can get those mortgages and pay for them.
"Ordinary people rarely use the courts; most of the courts are used for corporate law and contract disputes."
So what? Some of those corporations are not so huge and are owned and run by ordinary people.
"Corporations and their investors ... make much more use, compound use, of the empowering infrastructure provided by everybody’s tax money."
Supplied mostly by themselves, the majority of revenues being paid by a small minority of Americans.
"The wealthy have made greater use of the common good—they have been empowered by it in creating their wealth—and thus they have a greater moral obligation to sustain it."
Bullshit. The wealthy have done more risking and ass busting in order to succeed and THAT is what has empowered them to create their wealth. They've made greater use of the talents God gave them, doing what the non-wealthy won't do in order to attain their wealth. What the hell is "the common good" anyway? What crap!
"They are merely paying their debt to society in arrears and investing in future empowerment."
More bullshit. They've been paying their debt as they go. In fact, they leave little in the way of debt behind to society. As they pay the most revenues, employ people and provide products and services, a debt is owed them.
"This is the fundamental truth that motivates progressive taxation."
It's a fundamental fantasy. When's this idiot going to pay his own surplus to Uncle Sam, and live the rest of his life on 40K per year? Warren Buffoon.
Marshall...
You're taking the notion of progressive taxation and it is covetous, and class envy
Marshall, it appears that you just don't have a very fine grasp of the English language. As is so often the case with you, those words don't mean what you must think they do.
That, or you're just outright lying to support your political view point.
Enough with the false charges, move on.
"Do you read those comments and think he WASN'T in favor of a progressive tax scheme, at least at the time and in that context?"
The point is, why should I (or anyone living 200 years after he died) care?
"What the hell is "the common good" anyway? What crap!"
It is truly hard to believe MA has not yet been named Poet Laureate.
Can we compromise? I'm willing to go along with a modestly progressive income tax provided that:
1. Everyone pays some sort of income tax above whatever s/he recieves in federal benefits. By this I mean that no one personally receives more from the federal government than s/he pays out.
2. Eliminate the withholding tax. Everyone must consciously save up money to pay the tax bill on tax day. This way, individual earners are more aware of how much they're working for their own direct benefit and how much they are working to pay taxes.
3. Tax day is no longer in April, but on Election Day in November.
Did Art actually call the common good "crap"? If so, why aren't we all laughing hysterically?
"Did Art actually call the common good "crap"?"
No, Mr. Missthepoint. I didn't.
Dan,
It isn't my grasp of the English language that is off, it's your ability to understand it, as well as the ability of your boys.
Are you not looking at other peoples' monies to serve causes of YOUR choice? How is that different from wanting any possession belonging to someone else? You think it's OK because you label this coveting as "justice" (when it's not)? You're still after what belongs to another and you do so without regard for the person to whom it belongs. And in a sense, you're putting it in your pocket by feeling righteous that you're doing something for whatever cause compels you to seek that money, when you're using what belongs to another to serve that cause.
It's "covet" any way you wanna look at it, and "class envy" for all the other ways.
If "most people" see this your way, it's only because it's the easy way to see it. This perspective is bolstered by the socialist rhetoric of left-leaning thieves. It's far easier to take from those who have worked hard to be among the haves, than to re-adjust the attitudes of the have nots so that they behave in the manner of the haves in order to become one of them.
As to the truly needy, that's what each of us is for. That's what the church and local charities are for. So if you're too lazy or incompetent to increase your own wealth in order to do what you demand of others, then get a tin cup and solicit donations from the wealthy.
But to support legislation that takes if from them without their consent through taxation, pretending that it is OK because it is voted on by the majority, is not even close to justice, but rather and unjust and unChristian confiscation.
Marshall...
Are you not looking at other peoples' monies to serve causes of YOUR choice?
...It's "covet" any way you wanna look at it, and "class envy" for all the other ways.
Covet: to desire (what belongs to another) inordinately
MW
Covet: To long for inordinately or unlawfully; to hanker after (something forbidden).
Easton's Bible dictionary
Envy: To feel envy on account of; to have a feeling of grief or repining, with a longing to possess (some excellence or good fortune of another, or an equal good fortune, etc.); to look with grudging upon; to begrudge.
Easton's
I, along with I believe most moral people, believe in the concept of progressive taxation NOT because we desire anyone's money, not from a longing to possess, not begrudging anyone their money. We believe it is the most just, most rational, most fair way of paying for common needs in a common society.
It just does not mean what you think it does. You can think we're MISTAKEN about it being just, but you just make yourself out increasingly to be a buffoon with an agenda the longer you go down that road with your ax to grind.
Is it "coveting" to believe that we all ought to be responsible? Is it "coveting" when a minister encourages people to tithe? Is it "coveting" when we expect someone to pay a bill they owe?
No. No. No.
Stop acting the buffoon, Marshall. Use words rationally and in the common sense of their English definition when you hold an English conversation.
Or perhaps I'll accuse you of envy for thinking I'm mistaken. After all, if we're just going to assign words random meanings...
MA:" What the hell is "the common good" anyway? What crap!"
G:"Did Art actually call the common good "crap"?"
MA: "No, Mr. Missthepoint. I didn't."
Perhaps like Jon Kyl's recent stupidity, MA's comment "was not intended to be a factual statement." LOL
Dan,
It is you indulging in buffoonery. Cases in point:
"Is it "coveting" to believe that we all ought to be responsible?"
How does this tie in at all? The wealthy are already responsible for the greatest percentage of total revenues? Yet, of those over 40% of the population not paying federal income taxes, their low status is more often than not a result of irresponsible behavior, intended or not.
"Is it "coveting" when a minister encourages people to tithe?"
Is the minister forcing the tithes through some form of church legislation that would result in penalties for lack of compliance? A minister encouraging tithing is akin to any solicitor of donations to a worthy cause. More apples and oranges comparisons from the champion of apples to oranges comparisons.
"Is it "coveting" when we expect someone to pay a bill they owe?"
The desperation mounts, apparently, as you try to make this argument. And you dare accuse me of buffoonery. What you're doing would be making someone else pay for your bills, or making party A pay for the bills of party B (while taking pride in supporting the proposition).
So as I review the definitions you've offered (after having done so before using the words in the first place) we find that I am pretty damned accurate in their usage. What's more, I'm far closer in accuracy than your use of the word "justice". You're certainly hankering after the good fortune of others (created more often by their own efforts) to pay for your share of the federal debt, as well as the shares of those who don't get taxed.
But there is no justice in taking from another for any reason. You assume injustice due to the mere existence of differing classes of people. There is no justice in the gall required to see another's wealth and demand he must pay a greater percentage merely because he possesses more. "Boo-hoo! It's not fair that some have and some don't!" That would only be true if the haves took theirs from the have-nots or interfered with the ability of the have-nots to succeed. Until you can establish either, you're coveting and playing class envy games.
Justice in taxation is everyone paying the same amount if earings are equal, or the same percentage if earnings are not. That's proportion. Progressive taxation is "out of" proportion.
Alan,
"Perhaps like Jon Kyl's recent stupidity, MA's comment "was not intended to be a factual statement.""
No, boy. My statement is actual fact. Warren Buffet's sentiment expressed in his comments Dan posted is crap.
The incoherence on this thread is increasing exponentially.
Let's try this, Art. Your "argument", such as it is, seems to suggest that we citizens and residents of the United States owe nothing, by way of moral obligation, to the state which grants us the protection of its laws and military, that gives us legal personhood in the form of citizenship, and that some part - a plurality or majority, depending on the day - of the citizenry is engaged in covetousness, envy, and theft by seeking, through perfectly legal means, funds to ensure the government protect us from rapacious corporations, criminal individuals, and the depredations of time and neglect upon our infrastructure.
Every policy proposal involves the expenditure of money. Tax money. Your money, my money, Dan's money, whomever. In some cases, the policy in question is one I do not support, the Iraq War, say. I did not, and would not, complain that "my money" was being taken from me by covetous and thieving bureaucrats against my will in order to pursue ends with which I disagree. Part of living in a republican state is accepting that, when one's preferred policies are defeated and other policies implemented, they get paid for whether we like it or not. There are winners and losers, and I have to pay for all sorts of stuff I don't like. It happens. When conservatives pimps wars of choice, money to implement DOMA and the now-defunct DODA, I never wrote about how conservatives covet my money to do stuff I find offensive and anti-American. Yet, we are somehow to believe that your complaint is both sensible and rational when the opposite is the case?
The point about my general comments at the beginning of the previous comment is just this: the bulk of your comments concerning taxation suggest that you view taxation, in some way, as theft. Even though it is the state that provides the penumbra of legal and structural definitions that permit you to live in relative peace and safety, to find and work a job, to receive a paycheck, to move about freely and unimpeded either by overly-restrictive internal security laws or the threat of anarchy on the streets. It has always struck me as more than a little unrealistic, and certainly ungrateful, that conservatives argue the way you are arguing. You couldn't do any of the things you take for granted on a daily basis if it weren't for some form of government, somewhere, providing a service that costs money, whether its local government providing clean water, clean, drivable, and safe streets, state governments providing safe thoroughfares for travel and information on state services available, or the federal government providing protection from external threats, the physical infrastructure in the form of interstate highways, national parks for our enjoyment, etc., etc. For all these things, we pay our taxes. I, for one, do so with a sense of patriotism, even back in the darkest days of the Bush Administration. Because I wasn't just paying for stuff I didn't like, but for all sorts of stuff I need in order to live safe and free.
Geoffrey,
If a point was an elephant crapping in your living room, you wouldn't notice.
Never have I come close to suggesting anything other than that every American needs to pitch in for the services a gov't is Constitutionally mandated to provide. That's the starting point. It something that needs to be taught in schools and homes to our kids. It should go something like this: (From every dollar you earn (or receive) a portion should go to God, to your savings and to support the gov't. From what's left you learn to pay your personal living costs and then, from what may remain, splurge.) Being responsible to one's community is a given and has nothing to do with this discussion.
This discussion is about the righteousness (it ain't) or injustice of (it is) forcing more out of other people because they had the talent, ethic and drive to succeed financially to a greater degree than the covetous people making that demand. At that point it is indeed theft, regardless if you jokers robbed the wealthy outright or did so by abusing the vote to make it happen. It isn't enough for you guys that a dude making ten times what you do would pay ten times the taxes under a flat tax. I'm more than cool with it because it's the definition of fair and just.
So once again, your last two comments show a decided inability to get the point. Instead, you ramble on lecturing me on something not even at issue. I have not once mentioned what tax money is going to cover specifically, but only that the wealthy percentage of the population already is paying most of the cost as it is.
Pushing to have them taxed at even higher rates, as Barry O'bumble intends to do if he can, by letting the Bush era cuts expire for what HE considers to be the wealthy is unjust. He is stoking class envy like all lefty politicians do.
"For all these things, we pay our taxes. I, for one, do so with a sense of patriotism, even back in the darkest days of the Bush Administration."
But Geoffrey, that's because you have some basic understanding of social contract and the common good.
Others think such ideas are "crap."
It's difficult to persuade anyone about something when you don't hold to even the same basic fundamentals.
Art: "This discussion is about the righteousness (it ain't) or injustice of (it is) forcing more out of other people because they had the talent, ethic and drive to succeed financially to a greater degree than the covetous people making that demand. At that point it is indeed theft, regardless if you jokers robbed the wealthy outright or did so by abusing the vote to make it happen. It isn't enough for you guys that a dude making ten times what you do would pay ten times the taxes under a flat tax. I'm more than cool with it because it's the definition of fair and just."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Why is it that people who talk like this reveal their envy, their spite, their anger in the midst of denouncing the nonexistent covetousness of others? So Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, and hundreds of others who make more money in a month than I will see in a lifetime, lobbying the government for higher taxes for themselves and others is covetous? So folks like myself, far from wealthy, but far better off than the majority of Americans, wanting to pay higher taxes, is covetous?
Alan's latest comment is correct. The real heart of this thread is the question of the social contract, our adherence to it, and how even in times that are hard, or times in which what is asked of us goes against everything we believe in, that contract is the only thing that keeps us - all of us, all Americans - going. Your warmed-over Randian nonsense about how talented, hard-working people are being exploited by social parasites is easily shown to be false, if for no other reason than the ones cited above; if it were true, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, and me would all be demanding lower or no taxes, fewer services, and whining about how the human ticks and leeches are bleeding us dry.
Such a viewpoint is also extremely offensive, counter to any interpretive spirit, let alone letter of the gospel, and reflects a selfishness, not to mention childishness, that, were either of my daughters to express such ideas, would wind up with some kind of punishment. My nine year old has a better grasp of the common good, and the demands of the social contract, than you've displayed in your latest comment, Art. You should be proud.
Try to follow along:
It doesn't matter that there are exceptions to a rule for a rule to stand. At the same time, Buffet and Gates are another story. There is nothing stopping them from contributing more, well beyond what the current tax laws demand of them, and then soliciting the same from other rich guys.
But those who are under whatever threshold now considered wealthy (is it still 250K/yr?) have no right to demand of others simply because the others have more. It's covetous. It's really easy for you to subject others to your notion of justice borne out of that envy.
But anyone with a lick of sense knows that the problem is not revenues, which for quite some time have held to the same range of percentage of GDP despite tax rate changes. The problem is as it always is, gov't spending. There frankly isn't enough rich people to handle that.
Over at Wintery Knight's blog, he presents a brief piece from Walter Williams who cites a couple of studies (or merely stats---I don't have time to go back and look) showing how taxing everyone over that 250K line at 100%---taking every dime they earn---would not do the job. Even doing the same to corporations would not do it.
But the bottom line is that regardless of the spending and debt situation of the federal government, taxing the wealthy at a higher percentage than everyone else is still unjust, unfair and your only argument in favor is "Boo-hoo, they have more and I don't."
The only social contract that matters in this country is that all are equal under the law. Differing tax rates is not equality under the law. The social contract and serving the common good means living one's life in a manner that does not burden society. Over 40% pay no federal income taxes. Of those, some receive a check every year from the IRS. Who's abusing the social contract and working against the common good? It ain't the wealthy.
"...some in the media have fastened on a Tax Policy Center report saying that 47 percent of Americans pay no federal income tax. Is it true? In a very limited sense, yes, about 47 percent of households are owed more in federal help than they pay in federal income tax. But it's not because they don't owe federal income tax. It's because they're owed other money that runs through the tax code.
The Earned Income Tax Credit, for instance, is an income-support program created by Richard Nixon and expanded by both Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. The underlying idea came from legendary conservative economist Milton Friedman. So this is bipartisan stuff. And it was designed to run through the tax code rather than just send recipients a separate check. So if your income is low, you may (1) owe very little in income taxes, and (2) get a check through the EITC. The result isn't that you don't owe anything in federal income taxes, but that your income tax liability is wiped out by your EITC check."
source
That same source goes on to point out that, when you factor in all taxes (sales tax, gas tax, payroll taxes, etc), the poor pay proportionately about the same as everyone else. So, there's your flat tax, Marshall. If you move to make the federal tax burden "equal" what you would end up with is the poor paying a much greater percentage of their income in taxes, or a REGRESSIVE tax.
That would be a position I would oppose strenuously as patently UN-just.
Walter Williams is your source.
Good times.
Enjoy your Easter weekend.
Dan,
First of all, Friedman's version of an NIT was part of a flat-tax plan and he opposed it's implementation in a progressive plan. (He rejected income tax altogether, but favored a flat-tax if we must have an income tax at all.)
Secondly, if your liability is wiped out by an EITC, then you are paying no taxes. Getting money back to reduce or eliminate a tax paid is the same as paying no tax (or little tax) to begin with.
Thirdly, if the poor are paying proportionally the same as everyone else, then there is tax justice, real fairness, in the system. A poor person pays sales tax only on that which they can afford to buy (assuming they buy only when they CAN afford to buy). They don't pay sales tax on things they don't buy. Where's your problem with this? Where's the lack of fairness? Simply because they earn less than someone else? Unless you can show how they were forced into their poverty by someone else, forced to stay there and forced to buy things their meager income doesn't justify, you cannot speak of tax fairness or justice.
To clarify, a person/family in the lower income brackets is not a victim because he or a member of his family should, say, suffer a serious injury or illness. In that case, though they'd be "forced" to pay for something for which his meager income cannot provide, he is "forced" by life, not another person. This is not injustice, except for the axiom "life is unfair"---not a basis for forcing money from others to cover the costs.
For one who speaks of "hunches", "whimsy" and "caprice", you display a ton of this stuff in trying to make a case for progressive taxation as a means of "justice" or "fairness". You must prove an injustice has been committed for which a rich person, or the wealthy in general, is guilty before you can speak of taxation to restore justice.
Post a Comment