New Years Open Thread | All Things in Moderation

Login
- Moderately easy way to log in
Quote of the Moment

“The problem with people who have no vices is that generally you can be pretty sure they’re going to have some pretty annoying virtues”.

–Elizabeth Taylor
Sites to visit in moderation
Authors
Moderately Cloudy

4th of July 2012 2013 and beyond aca administrative Affordable Care Act Basketball big government Bites and Pieces Bits and Pieces budget comics Congress Constitution cooking Economic data Economy Elections Fall Federal Reserve food Football fun stuff gay marriage healthcare health insurance housing law Morning Report Obama Open Thread OWS politics recipes regulations Republican Party Supreme Court taxes TED Talks This Day in History
The Tag Cloud
"I am not a crook..." 4th Amendment 2008 2014 Abortion admiral ackbar afghanistan AG Masto Andrew Sullivan assassination bad lip reading breast cancer bribery (lol) Buffett Tax Bush cartoons Charities Christmas cookies Civil War climate change climategate comics crony capitalism diet drafts dream act drones elections Emily Meier Facebook fast and furious fast food fat Federal Reserve finance gardens geology girl power health idiots immigration inflation Marines marriage Media middle class muppets NDAA NEW POST Newt Gingrich North Korea Oakland OLYMPICS opening thread over leveraged Perry cartoon political process public space Reaganomics Rick Perry robo-signing Ryan Budget Scott Walker Sports star wars stratfor Sunday funnies super committee TARP ted vegetarian possibilities videos Weekend whistle blower Wisconsin

New Years Open Thread

Posted on January 1, 2013 by ScottC

Just an open thread…that is all.

Filed under: Open Thread |

« ¡Hot Tamales! Morning Report: Happy New Year 01/02/13 »

150 Responses

ScottC, on January 1, 2013 at 7:06 am said:

Some interesting commentary from Ace of Spades, along with a video (below).

So as I thought about it more I started thinking this video was in fact fair, and not a mistake. If these celebrities want to install Precrime laws criminalizing otherwise-lawful activities on the notion that We Must Do Everything Possible to stop all contributing factors to killings… They should take a look at themselves.

They certainly have done an awful lot of PR work for the Gun as Totem Bestowing Power on the Impotent. They’ve depicted the gun — unrealistically, fantastically — as a Magic Wand that grants its owner the heroic ability to Win and Impose His Will on Any Situation.

And that belief is just as necessary to the mass killing of six year old children as the gun itself. Normal people do not murder 20 children.

It wasn’t only the gun that was needed for this killing; it was also the psychological state of believing in The Gun as an agent of Power and Deliverance.

And that came from Hollywood.

Now I wouldn’t indulge in either of these awful and stupid precrime measures. I would not repeal the First Amendment just as I wouldn’t repeal the Second.

But if Hollywood’s calling for one precrime prohibition, it is duty-bound to call for the other as well.

After all — the children. The children that they were responsible for killing.

LikeLike

Reply
Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on January 1, 2013 at 7:20 am said:

Here’s more Grist for the mill, or, ammo for the clip:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/336529/regulating-militia-kevin-d-williamson#

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323777204578195470446855466.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

LikeLike

Reply
jnc4p, on January 1, 2013 at 7:21 am said:

Krugman on the Senate deal and why Democrats and Progressives have a problem with a deal that’s all tax increases and no spending cuts:

“The bad news is that the deal falls short on making up for the revenue lost due to the Bush tax cuts. Here, though, it’s important to put the numbers in perspective. Obama wasn’t going to let all the Bush tax cuts go away in any case; only the high-end cuts were on the table. Getting all of those ended would have yielded something like $800 billion; he actually got around $600 billion. How big a difference does that make?

Well, the CBO estimates cumulative potential GDP over the next decade at $208 trillion.So the difference between what Obama got and what he arguably should have gotten is around 0.1 percent of potential GDP. That’s not crucial, to say the least.

And on the principle of the thing, you could say that Democrats held their ground on the essentials — no cuts in benefits — while Republicans have just voted for a tax increase for the first time in decades.

So why the bad taste in progressives’ mouths? It has less to do with where Obama ended up than with how he got there. He kept drawing lines in the sand, then erasing them and retreating to a new position. And his evident desire to have a deal before hitting the essentially innocuous fiscal cliff bodes very badly for the confrontation looming in a few weeks over the debt ceiling.”

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/01/perspective-on-the-deal/

If there was ever a case to be made for Obama successfully “playing the long game” and tricking the Republicans into viewing defeat as victory, it’s this deal that has no spending cuts at all.

LikeLike

Reply
Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on January 1, 2013 at 8:18 am said:

I’m going to propose a radical idea, let’s raise taxes on all income earning Americans to the point that, at current and future federal government spending levels, we have enough of a surplus to pay down, say, 1% of the debt (on top of the interest owed) per year. Yeah, it will suck, yeah it will be a drag on the “recovery,” but funding this level of government is always going to be those things. There is no more reason to wait. It’s not as if the economy, under the current regulatory regime, is going to improve. I beleive that Robert Barro is right and that Americans view government borrowing as, and I’m paraphrasing, a tax increase. If that’s the case, might as well make it real. Further, putting the country on an immediate secure financial footing will help, in the long run, to end some of the uncertainty.

Now, the question is, what level of taxation is required to enact my proposal immediately? I don’t know. I propose that income tax rates increase on all Americans by, say, 25% and that we enact a Federal sales tax, not a VAT, a sales tax, on all goods, to make up the difference. I would also eliminate all Federal income tax deductions.

Look, we voted ourselves this level of spending, is it fair to leave it to the next several generations to pay for it?

LikeLike

Reply
- ScottC, on January 1, 2013 at 9:01 am said:
  
  McWing:
  
  Look, we voted ourselves this level of spending, is it fair to leave it to the next several generations to pay for it?
  
  Since when has fairness mattered to supporters of this level of spending? Indeed, the whole point of most of this spending is that it is spent on a people specifically not paying for it. The “we” who voted for Obama voted for someone else to pay for the spending they want, whether it is the “millionaires and billionaires” making $250k a year or the next several generations.
  
  LikeLiked by 1 person
  
  Reply
Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on January 1, 2013 at 9:21 am said:

Scott, I agree with your opinion on this whole-heartedly. But now it is time for the voters of this government to get what they want. And I hope they get it good and had, to quote Mencken.

Here’s a glimpse into a single payer healthcare system that is much admired and desired for this country.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2255054/60-000-patients-death-pathway-told-minister-says-controversial-end-life-plan-fantastic.html

Why would this system be better?

LikeLike

Reply
- ScottC, on January 1, 2013 at 9:52 am said:
  
  MCwing:
  
  And I hope they get it good and had, to quote Mencken.
  
  I am with you.
  
  Why would this system be better?
  
  You’ve heard me say it before, but if national health care is going to be forced upon us, I don’t just welcome death panels, I demand them.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
jnc4p, on January 1, 2013 at 9:22 am said:

“I beleive that Robert Barro is right and that Americans view government borrowing as, and I’m paraphrasing, a tax increase. ”

I believe that there’s also an expectation that some portion will be inflated away which acts a tax on everyone holding U.S. currency or treasury notes. Might as well have the Chinese pay too.

LikeLike

Reply
Fairlington Blade, on January 1, 2013 at 9:54 am said:

Troll – Because they spend about half what we do on health care with similar outcomes. Two years better, actually, in terms of life expectancy. They sat at a little under 10% in terms of GDP in 2010, whereas we’re at around 18%. Let’s see here. For a $15T GDP, 8% represents $1.2T. And there’s your deficit. Heck, split it 50/50 with the private sector and the deficit is cut in half.

I had limited contact with the NHS during my four years there as I was in pretty good health. It worked fine for primary care. In terms of primary care, we do a lot worse than they do. I haven’t had direct contact with the Costa Rican system, but my father did when he had a nosebleed during their one visit to Costa Rica (my wedding). They felt they received better care than the trip to the hospital in Texas on the way back.

BB

LikeLike

Reply
Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on January 1, 2013 at 10:02 am said:

Scott,

I agree, I also demand, nay, order all obese people literally be starved until they reach a prescribed ideal “healthy” weight. Also, I’d ban smoking and forbid treatment of any illness, regardless of origin, of any current or former smoker. Ditto for pot smokers.

Hey, central control is fun!

LikeLike

Reply
Fairlington Blade, on January 1, 2013 at 10:06 am said:

Ah, the totalitarian fantasies of the right come out. Funny how the UK managed to have the NHS for over half a century without any of these coming to realization.

BB

LikeLike

Reply
Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on January 1, 2013 at 10:08 am said:

Another thing I’d institute right now is a ban on treatment/payment for current Medicare and Medicaid smokers. I’d offer, as a reward, 1/2 the cash equivalent of projected lifetime treatment costs of these smokers, to those that turn in Medicare and Medicaid smokers.

LikeLike

Reply
Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on January 1, 2013 at 10:11 am said:

If I’m being forced, literally at gunpoint, to pay for someone else’s healthcare, and the only way to control costs in this Central Planning model is rationing, how are my proposals not the most rational, er rationing? Seriously? Is it totalitarianism to employ common sense restrictions on bad behavior and rewards for good behavior? We are trying to create a sustainable system here, no? Also, if we are willing to give a central authority that kind of power, why shouldn’t it use it to the betterment of all? How is that not a logical, even beneficial outcome for all.

LikeLike

Reply
Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on January 1, 2013 at 10:18 am said:

Really interesting interpretation of Obama’s second term priorities:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-obamas-messianism-makes-economy-a-secondary-concern/article/2517235#.UOMOkny9KSP

LikeLike

Reply
Fairlington Blade, on January 1, 2013 at 10:19 am said:

We want all your guns. 😉

You’re already being forced, though not literally at gunpoint, to pay for someone else’s healthcare. The last time I checked, the entire US government budget for healthcare (Medicare, Medicaid, Tricare, health insurance of government employees) roughly matches that of the fraction of GDP spent in single payer systems.

Given that my father suffers from COPD, I’ll thank you to kindly take your hands from around his neck.

BB

LikeLike

Reply
- ScottC, on January 1, 2013 at 10:33 am said:
  
  FB:
  
  Given that my father suffers from COPD, I’ll thank you to kindly take your hands from around his neck.
  
  Given that I’ve got my own family with health worries to consider, I’ll thank you to kindly take your hands off my wallet.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on January 1, 2013 at 10:22 am said:

FB,

I’m sorry about your father, COPD is an awful condition.

“You’re already being forced, though not literally at gunpoint, to pay for someone else’s healthcare.”

I don’t know how else you could possible characterize it? Even I acknowledge that force is required to collect even a tax rate of a penny.

LikeLike

Reply
Fairlington Blade, on January 1, 2013 at 10:27 am said:

Not a worry, Troll. I’m taking this conversation in the spirit of Jonathan Swift’s modest proposal.

I remember seeing my father’s struggle with smoking throughout middle age, by which time the dangers of smoking became clear. Some nasty career and legal trouble stressed him enough that he could never shake the habit that he picked up in the military.

It was that trip to Costa Rica that finally did it for him. When he got back home, he finally had the exam that he needed. It showed his lung capacity was something like 30% of what it should be. It became a case of you can keep smoking or you can keep breathing. That finally broke the habit. It’s a wicked deep hook.

I’m frankly surprised that he’s made it this far. My paternal grandparents predeceased me and I didn’t think that my kids would have much of a chance to remember him. So, I’m delighted he’s hung around so long. We had several long trips to KC last year so he’d get to see more of my kids and, hopefully, they might remember him.

BB

LikeLike

Reply
- ScottC, on January 1, 2013 at 10:50 am said:
  
  FB:
  
  I’m taking this conversation in the spirit of Jonathan Swift’s modest proposal.
  
  I’m not intending my end of it that way. I am totally serious. Cost/benefit analyses are a necessary fact of existence. If health care is going to be nationalized, then the “nation” is going to have to engage in such cost/benefit analysis with regard to spending on health care. And that means at times deciding whether or not it is worth keeping someone alive.
  
  Bring on the death panels, just as the NHS is doing.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
Fairlington Blade, on January 1, 2013 at 10:30 am said:

In this world, wrecking one’s credit is sufficient. Employers now look at credit reports, so bad credit can mean no job. My position requires me to hold a clearance. Financial problems and substance abuse are the top two for clearances being denied.

When it comes to FICA taxes, you simply don’t have a choice unless you are self-employed. The employer will withhold those funds. I suppose you could claim allowances that you aren’t permitted, though that constitutes fraud. There’s implied force behind a prosecution.

BB

LikeLike

Reply
- ScottC, on January 1, 2013 at 10:42 am said:
  
  FB:
  
  There’s implied force behind a prosecution.
  
  There’s the threat of force behind pretty much every act the government undertakes. Advocates of big government are loathe to admit it, but the threat of coercion is the only reason to involve the government in any endeavor. A government that does not use, or at least threaten to use, coercion accomplishes nothing that can’t be accomplished outside of government.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  - ScottC, on January 1, 2013 at 10:52 am said:
    
    FB:
    
    Lovely tautology there, Scott.
    
    What is the tautology?
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on January 1, 2013 at 10:36 am said:

FB, there are plenty of jailed tax protestors who would argue about the threat of force. Wesley Snipes comes to mind, as does Al Capone.

LikeLike

Reply
Fairlington Blade, on January 1, 2013 at 10:38 am said:

True, but you probably need to run up a tab of a few million first. 😉

BB

LikeLike

Reply
Fairlington Blade, on January 1, 2013 at 10:44 am said:

Lovely tautology there, Scott.

BB

LikeLike

Reply
Fairlington Blade, on January 1, 2013 at 10:55 am said:

The first time the death panel canard was introduced by Palin, outraged responses by British crashed twitter. Heh.

BB

LikeLike

Reply
- ScottC, on January 1, 2013 at 11:01 am said:
  
  FB:
  
  The first time the death panel canard was introduced by Palin, outraged responses by British crashed twitter.
  
  I don’t think you understand what a canard is. BTW, Palin was concerned about the prospect that death panels might come to be. I am concerned that they won’t come to be.
  
  What was the tautology?
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on January 1, 2013 at 11:05 am said:

Why were the Brits outraged? Serious question, as their NICE panel and the Liverpool Pathway demonstrate, they have them? Are they outraged that we know about it?

Another question for Central Control healthcare, should we ban private pay/private insurance? If so, then Scott’s concern, “Given that I’ve got my own family with health worries to consider, I’ll thank you to kindly take your hands off my wallet.” become’s moot, no? Would that be a good thing?

LikeLike

Reply
- ScottC, on January 1, 2013 at 12:23 pm said:
  
  McWing:
  
  Another question for Central Control healthcare, should we ban private pay/private insurance?
  
  If it is not banned, then you end up with a two tiered system, just like they have in the UK. In the UK most doctors accept both private pay and NHS patients. But access via private pay is much easier than via NHS. I have probably told this story before, but when I lived in the UK and needed to see a doctor, I would routinely call up for an appointment and be told I could see the doctor in 2 or 3 weeks. As soon as I pointed out that I was a private patient and would be paying with insurance, I suddenly could see the doctor within at most a couple of days.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
Fairlington Blade, on January 1, 2013 at 11:20 am said:

Coercion is the sole reason to bring in government. Therefore, if coercion is not required, then neither is government.

I suspect recent victims of that compounding pharmacy wish a bit more coercion had been used.

BB

LikeLike

Reply
- ScottC, on January 1, 2013 at 11:38 am said:
  
  FB:
  
  Coercion is the sole reason to bring in government. Therefore, if coercion is not required, then neither is government.
  
  Well, you introduced the word “therefore”, not me. I simply made two statements, neither of them a tautology, that made the same point. So dismissing what I said as a “tautology” doesn’t make a lot of sense.
  
  So do you acknowledge the truth of the proposition, ie that employing coercion, or at least the threat of it, is the only reason to task the government with accomplishing whatever ends you are seeking to accomplish?
  
  I suspect recent victims of that compounding pharmacy wish a bit more coercion had been used.
  
  I don’t see the relevance of this to what we are discussing.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
markinaustin, on January 1, 2013 at 11:21 am said:

I am home sick with a bad cold for the first time in a VERY LONG TIME. So I have the leisure to catch up with all this reading and I even haunted PL this morning, generally agreeing with JNC and john-banned and reading comment after comment which claimed that SSOASB is not an entitlement. JNC finally noted that if OASB was not an entitlement the word has no meaning whatsoever.

I owe Scott a reply to an email that I am going to address sometime today, in my enforced leisure.

I think most of us have had our alma maters win in the Bowl season. QB and I shared YJ’s joy in GT beating USC and Kiffin. Kiffin is a bad actor. Brent will need rotsaruck for WI to win, I think.

LikeLike

Reply
Fairlington Blade, on January 1, 2013 at 11:22 am said:

It was Palin’s comments in 2009 about death panels and the NHS, including the hoot worthy contention that Sir Stephen Hawking wouldn’t be alive in that system. Ah, Sarah…

Actually, I think the combination of a single payer system with parallel private care works quite nicely. That is pretty much how things are handled in Costa Rica. The general populace receives primary care, but you go into the private system for particular treatments is you can afford it.

BB

LikeLike

Reply
Fairlington Blade, on January 1, 2013 at 11:25 am said:

It will be a long long time before Macalester College gets to a bowl.

Iowa State lost to Tulsa in the Liberty Bowl.

BB

LikeLike

Reply
Fairlington Blade, on January 1, 2013 at 11:45 am said:

That’s the essence of the tautology. The second statement. rather than following on from the first, is a restatement. And, no, I don’t find it supportable that coercion is necessary for any government action.

BB

LikeLike

Reply
- markinaustin, on January 1, 2013 at 11:53 am said:
  
  Scott, you don’t believe in anarchy, right? So if the majority will imposes a restriction or a duty or a tax upon an individual is that voluntary or is it coercive? [either answer is correct, for grading purposes, but your answer will clarify what we are talking about].
  
  Or do you think that representative government is illusory, and that the government we elect at every level is disembodied from the electorate? [again, there is no wrong answer, for grading purposes]. I think Austin city government is disembodied from the citizenry, for example.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  - ScottC, on January 1, 2013 at 12:41 pm said:
    
    mark:
    
    Scott, you don’t believe in anarchy, right?
    
    Correct.
    
    So if the majority will imposes a restriction or a duty or a tax upon an individual is that voluntary or is it coercive?
    
    Obviously it is coercive.
    
    Or do you think that representative government is illusory, and that the government we elect at every level is disembodied from the electorate?
    
    The governments we elect are most certainly disembodied from the electorate. I would add that the higher the level of government (and thus the larger the electorate) the more disembodied it is.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
- ScottC, on January 1, 2013 at 12:36 pm said:
  
  FB:
  
  And, no, I don’t find it supportable that coercion is necessary for any government action.
  
  The proposition was not that coercion was necessary for any government action. The proposition was “that employing coercion, or at least the threat of it, is the only reason to task the government with accomplishing whatever ends you are seeking to accomplish.” To clarify, by “task the government” I mean tasking the government instead of a non-governmental agent of action.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  - markinaustin, on January 1, 2013 at 12:46 pm said:
    
    The proposition was “that employing coercion, or at least the threat of it, is the only reason to task the government with accomplishing whatever ends you are seeking to accomplish.”
    
    Another reason: the enterprise only lends itself to monopoly, such as a wastewater facility or a highway system. I favor regulated private ownership, but theoretically a government monopoly is no less efficient than a private one and cheaper to operate.
    
    Another reason: There is no profit to be made from the enterprise but there is demonstrable public loss from foregoing it. Clean air clean water, public health inoculations, aspects of national security might be examples.
    
    Another reason: The enterprise is based on the relationship of the sovereign with other sovereigns. See treaties.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
    - ScottC, on January 1, 2013 at 1:37 pm said:
      
      mark:
      
      the enterprise only lends itself to monopoly, such as a wastewater facility or a highway system.
      
      Well, I wouldn’t call a highway system a monopoly. I would call it a public good. But with regard to a wastewater facility or other public utility services, one might argue sensibly that a monopoly is inevitable or most efficient, but to argue in favor of a government monopoly is necessarily to argue in favor of a coercive monopoly, either via laws preventing private actors from competing or laws forcing consumers to purchase the product. In either event, what the government brings to the equation as the government is the ability to use coercion.
      
      There is no profit to be made from the enterprise but there is demonstrable public loss from foregoing it.
      
      Which is simply to say that the enterprise needs to be forced on the public for its own good. To take one of your examples, public health inoculations, coercion is necessary in order to 1) force the inoculation on people who otherwise would choose not to get it or 2) force people who otherwise would not do so to pay for the inoculation of others who cannot pay for themselves. Again, government is necessary because coercion is necessary.
      
      The enterprise is based on the relationship of the sovereign with other sovereigns. See treaties.
      
      Perhaps, although implicit in any treaty agreement is the notion that the sovereign has the power to enforce the conditions of the treaty on its population. Which of course requires coercive powers.
      
      LikeLike
Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on January 1, 2013 at 12:44 pm said:

Scott,

I agree that a two-tier system will be a result without banning private pay/private insurance. However, is that what we want? I believe that some (a majority?) of the left argue that “means testing” of entitlements like SS and Medicare is a bad idea because it then turns into “welfare” which “inevitably” gets cut. “Means testing” for Medicare anyway would inevitable lead to a two-tiered system under a Central Command type healthcare system.

I cannot find it no, but Veronica De Rugby at NRO had a posting a couple of weeks ago discussing how spending on the seventy odd federal welfare programs has increased over the years.

Are there posters here, of the left, that believe ‘means testing” is bad for SS and Medicare, in the long term?

LikeLike

Reply
- ScottC, on January 1, 2013 at 12:58 pm said:
  
  McWing:
  
  I think means-testing of SS and medicare should be used only if it is employed such that only very small minority of people are included in the program. I think that means testing such that only a very small minority, or even a significant minority, of people are excluded from the program, which is probably what will ultimately happen, is deplorable and a moral abomination.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
Michigoose, on January 1, 2013 at 8:58 pm said:

Just popping in to say Happy New Year to all and that I’m back on line. Nothing in this day and age like not having internet access for a few days!!

So good to be back. . . 😀

LikeLike

Reply
- ScottC, on January 2, 2013 at 4:40 am said:
  
  The Obama tax and spending hikes have been passed on New Year’s Day. Happy fuckin’ new year.
  
  It’s not a very nice sentiment, I suppose, but to everyone who supports this economic and moral abomination, from those in Congress to even the most ignorant of Obama voters, I truly hope that 2013 brings you all that you deserve.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  - ScottC, on January 2, 2013 at 6:28 am said:
    
    This whole manufactured “fiscal cliff” issue laid bare the fundamental dishonesty of the left when it comes to taxes. Recall that in 2001 and 2003 the Bush tax cuts were routinely framed by the left as “tax cuts for the rich”. The expiration of those very same cuts, however, has now been framed as a huge burden on the poor and middle class. The left is totally shameless in its depraved desire to load the ever-growing burden of government spending onto an ever-shrinking minority of citizens.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
yellojkt, on January 2, 2013 at 8:19 am said:

Wastewater plants are a public good in that they protect the health of both the direct customers and those affected by the externalities of not having one.

LikeLike

Reply
Mike, on January 2, 2013 at 8:22 am said:

an ever-shrinking minority of citizens.

To whom are you referring?

I’d say that GWB won big last night — most of his “temporary” tax cuts are now permanent, with only the taxes on the “rich” going back up to WJC levels. Vindication, of sorts.

At least the House saved $60B by not voting on the Senate’s Hurricane Sandy relief bill.

LikeLike

Reply
- ScottC, on January 2, 2013 at 8:44 am said:
  
  Mike:
  
  To whom are you referring?
  
  That small minority of people who already bear by far the largest burden of financing the government, and who will now be forced to bear even more.
  
  I’d say that GWB won big last night
  
  I don’t know about Bush, but I think it is clear that idiotic and immoral progressive politics won big last night. Government spending continues to grow, but the vast majority of citizens who voted for that spending will not be burdened with paying any more for it. At least explicitly and for now. Hopefully this grotesque addiction to spending other people’s money will some day produce more just consequences than the immediate ones.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
yellojkt, on January 2, 2013 at 8:54 am said:

Part of the strategy of allowing the Bush Tax Cutz to sunset was knowing they never would. To a large degree, that strategy worked as it formed the baseline for negotiations.

LikeLike

Reply
Mike, on January 2, 2013 at 9:24 am said:

Scott:

That small minority of people who already bear by far the largest burden of financing the government, and who will now be forced to bear even more.

Just looking at the numbers from the federal income taxes from the IRS, the ratio between Total Tax Share and Adjusted Gross Income Share for the top 1% of earners is relatively stable at ~2 (Tables 5 and 6). Perhaps the fiscal cliff deal with change that ratio, even without capturing all of the 1%, but we probably won’t know for sure until 2015.

LikeLike

Reply
- ScottC, on January 2, 2013 at 10:03 am said:
  
  Mike:
  
  Just looking at the numbers from the federal income taxes from the IRS, the ratio between Total Tax Share and Adjusted Gross Income Share for the top 1% of earners is relatively stable at ~2 (Tables 5 and 6).
  
  The ratio between tax share and income share is irrelevant to which demographic is bearing the greatest load of financing the government. To measure a given demographic’s share of the burden of financing government, one need only know how much that demographic has paid in taxes relative to all taxes paid. The demographic itself may be defined by income level, but the share of the burden can only be sensibly defined by how much that demographic pays. And, of course, the share of taxes shouldered by the top 10% of taxpayers has been steadily climbing while the share of the other 90% has been steadily declining for decades (see slide 4 and 5). And what just got passed is designed to make that trend continue.
  
  I would think that people on the left would be reveling in these facts, not denying them.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
Mike, on January 2, 2013 at 2:04 pm said:

Scott:

The ratio between tax share and income share is irrelevant to which demographic is bearing the greatest load of financing the government.

No, it is relevant. What the data show is that the top 1% are paying approximately double the share of an average individual (Chart 2 from your link). That means they are bearing a greater load of the tax burden and have been for decades (Tables 5 and 6 from my link).

the share of the burden can only be sensibly defined by how much that demographic pays.

That is an overly simplistic and uncritical way to look at the question. When the demographic is defined by a parameter essential for determining that demographic’s contribution to the totality, it is only logical to control for confounding effects. One way to do that is to normalize the contribution to the parameter. An individual’s income tax is calculated (roughly) as a proportion to how much AGI one reports. Therefore, the aggregate share of the income tax burden of a group of individuals is dependent on its aggregate share of AGI and can be normalized by using a ratio (or other derivative thereof). Another way to look at it is just by using average tax rate (Chart 5 from your link). Again, a relatively stable ~2-fold greater tax rate for the 1% compared to the average taxpayer for decades.

Your formulation is akin to saying that the largest 1% of container ships carry a disproportionate amount of the world’s goods relative to the total number of container ships and that the share of cargo these container ships carry has increased over time, ignoring the salient fact that the proportion of the total cargo tonnage represented by those ships has increased as well.

You could choose a different parameter, like college education or age, and say that more educated or older people are bearing a greater share of the tax burden as well, but it is clear that earning power is also related to education and age.

the share of taxes shouldered by the top 10% of taxpayers has been steadily climbing

The fiscal cliff deal will only capture a portion of the top 1%, so your top 10% numbers are irrelevant since >$400/450K earners are only a small subset of the top 10%. The top 1% of taxpayers is the relevant, though still imperfect, comparison. And yes, over time, the share of taxes shouldered by the top 1% has steadily climbed, but not disproportionately with their increased share of total AGI. The reversion to the Clinton-era tax rates on high earners may change that, though it is unlikely we will reliably see that difference due to the “noise” in annually reported AGIs and tax treatments.

You can be logically rigorous and still argue the valid point that the “rich” pay a much higher (~2-fold) level of taxes compared with the average taxpayer (again, Chart 2). There really is no need for irrational hyperbole.

LikeLike

Reply
- ScottC, on January 2, 2013 at 5:37 pm said:
  
  Mike:
  
  What the data show is that the top 1% are paying approximately double the share of an average individual (Chart 2 from your link).
  
  Chart two makes no reference to an average individual, and does not give enough information to tell us what the share of an average individual is. So I don’t know what you are referring to.
  
  What chart 2 shows is that in 1985 the top 1% paid 25.8% of all taxes collected, and that share/burden has steadily risen since to 36.5% of all taxes collected, while the share of the bottom 90% has steadily fallen from 45% to 29.5%. In other words, the share of government spending borne by the top 1% has increased over time, while that borne by the bottom 90% has shrunk over time. (Actually, to be more accurate, I should say the share of government spending paid for by taxes.)
  
  That is an overly simplistic and uncritical way to look at the question.
  
  Not at all. It is the only way to look at the question that I was addressing, namely the question of the share of the total tax burden borne by different demographic groups. I think you simply want to change the question to something else.
  
  When the demographic is defined by a parameter essential for determining that demographic’s contribution to the totality, it is only logical to control for confounding effects.
  
  That depends on what you are looking to determine. It is, necessarily, true that in a system in which the tax burden is determined by income, as one’s share of income grows, one’s share of the tax burden grows. But that truism does not change or qualify the simple fact that one’s share of the tax burden is in fact growing. By making more money in income, one is necessarily making more money available to the government to spend than it otherwise would have. It makes no sense to “control” for this fact if one is trying to point out who is in fact making more money available to the government.
  
  In a sane world, voters would be thankful for someone who makes a huge amount of income, because that fact alone, even with just a flat tax much less the stupidly progressive one we have, would mean the government has more money to spend on its pet projects than it otherwise would have. But we do not live in a sane world. We live in a liberal world where the biggest contributors to tax revenues are regularly vilified and their outsized and wholly disproportionate contributions toward funding the ever-growing federal government are routinely dismissed by demagogues like Obama as too little to cover their “fair share”.
  
  Your formulation is akin to saying that the largest 1% of container ships carry a disproportionate amount of the world’s goods relative to the total number of container ships and that the share of cargo these container ships carry has increased over time, ignoring the salient fact that the proportion of the total cargo tonnage represented by those ships has increased as well.
  
  I don’t get your point. Suppose the total cargo tonnage carried by all ships in the world is, for simplicity’s sake, say 1 million tons, and a single shipping company with particularly large ships carries 300k tons by itself, while all the other shipping companies combined carry 700k. Then one year that single shipping company builds even bigger ships, thus increasing its total tonnage to 500k while all the rest of the shipping companies, which did not upgrade its ships, continue to ship only 700k. It is a fact, and an interesting one at that, that the single shipping company increased its share of global shipping from 30% to 42%. In fact, it is even more interesting that the total increase in global shipping was accounted for entirely by this single shipping company. I’m not at all sure why downplaying the contributions of this single company to total global shipping by “controlling” for the size of its ships would be interesting or relevant at all.
  
  You could choose a different parameter, like college education or age, and say that more educated or older people are bearing a greater share of the tax burden as well
  
  And if the president and congress was insisting that tax rate should be raised on college educated people or people of a certain age because they weren’t paying their “fair share” or weren’t “sacrificing” enough, then I would do precisely that. But, alas, he is saying those things about a demographic defined by income, so that is what I chose.
  
  And yes, over time, the share of taxes shouldered by the top 1% has steadily climbed, but not disproportionately with their increased share of total AGI.
  
  Why “but”? Why do you think the level of an individual’s income somehow qualifies or diminishes or tempers the increasing nature of the financial contributions he makes towards supporting the government? A person who makes $450k is a citizen just the same as someone who makes $30k, and receives no more services or benefits from the government, and indeed likely receives considerably fewer benefits. Certainly he does relative to the taxes he pays. So, when talking about his outsized and disproportionate contributions to government coffers, why do you find it necessary to qualify his contributions with references to his income? If his income was determined as a function of the taxes he paid, that qualification might make some sense. But in fact reality is exactly the opposite, so it makes no sense to me at all.
  
  There really is no need for irrational hyperbole.
  
  What did I say that you think is irrational hyperbole?
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  - markinaustin, on January 2, 2013 at 8:55 pm said:
    
    Scott, incomes for the top 1% grew 241% between 1979 and 2007, compared to 11% for the bottom fifth and 19% for the middle fifth. Do you not take that into account?
    
    In other words, much more income goes to the top 1% proportionately than did in 1979.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
    - ScottC, on January 2, 2013 at 10:37 pm said:
      
      mark:
      
      Do you not take that into account?
      
      When speaking of who bears the greatest burden for funding government, why would I? Given our perverted tax system, pointing out their income level explains how it has come to be that they pay so much more than everyone else, but it doesn’t change the fact that they do in fact pay way more than anyone else, nor does it justify the fact.
      
      This constant need to qualify the fact that only a relatively few people fund most of the governemnt’s tax revenue by citing the income of those few people is baffling. If you and I went out to dinner together and afterwards I pointed out that when the bill came I paid three times as much as you did, it might make sense for you to say “Yeah, but you ordered the surf and turf and had 3 grey goose martinis while I ordered a hamburger and had 3 cokes.” In this context the moral implications of your “Yeah, but…” are understandable. But if instead you responded “Yeah, but you make 5 times what I make, so you got a good deal,” it would make no sense whatsoever. And it would not only be nonsensical, it would be infuriating to me if in fact it was you who got the surf and turf while I had the hamburger, which is even more akin to the tax situation.
      
      There is a sense among many of you, it seems, that income level is not simply an easy and efficient way for government to allocate taxes, but that it is also the self-evidently just way of determining an individual’s moral obligation to support the government, in much the same way that it is self-evident that one’s moral obligation to share in a dinner bill is determined by what one ordered to eat. I, however, don’t think that income is a self-evidently just way of determining one’s moral obligation to support the government at all, and indeed I think it is a particularly unjust way of doing so. Yes, it is the way the government collects taxes, and so yes, those who earn the most income will necessarily pay the most taxes. But when I point out that high income earners already bear a disproportionate share of government’s propensity to spend money, the inevitable “Yeah, but they have a high income,” strikes me as a complete non-sequitur, to which the logical response is “So what?”
      
      LikeLike
    - markinaustin, on January 3, 2013 at 6:21 am said:
      
      As Mike said, the real numbers prove your point without the innaccurate spin you put on them.
      
      Suppose the top 1% earned 28% of all income in 1980 and 36% now. Then the top 1% in JNC’s actual flat tax system would have paid 28% of all taxes and 36% now. Something like that has happened, but I don’t know the actual numbers. The folks who get hit hardest in our “progressive” tax system are families like mine, who have two professional incomes, not financial gurus, whose dividends are somehow less taxable than my earned income. So I do have a bitch with the system.
      
      Neither Mike nor I are talking about a moral issue. Only you are. Neither Mike nor I think the actual math doesn’t support your point that the rich pay more than a proportionate share of their income in taxes. We are only criticizing your mathematical focus, which is taken in a vacuum that does not recognize the growth of the proportion of all incomes earned by the top 1%. The aggregate share of the income tax burden of a group of individuals is dependent on its aggregate share of income, in the end.
      
      Here is a chart from Wikipedia. I do not vouch for it.
      
      Quintile Ave. pretax income Effective income + payroll tax rate Income from CG+Int+Div. Dividends
      Lowest $18,400 2.0% 1.3%
      Second $42,500 9.1% 1.6%
      Middle $64,500 12.7% 2.5%
      Fourth $94,100 15.7% 3.7%
      Highest $264,700 20.1% 21.4%
      
      Top 10% $394,500 20.7% 26.7%
      Top 5% $611,200 20.9% 32.1%
      Top 1% $1,873,000 20.6% 43.4%
      
      Top 400[11] $344,831,528* 16.6% 81.3%
      
      If that is illegible, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States
      
      I am with JNC on the general proposition that separating incomes into silos obfuscates the entire exercise. I am moved by simplicity and collectability arguments. I believe that while a tax is necessary, it can be too large and thus be confiscatory or destructive. I am with don juan banned on the notion that the federal gummint doesn’t budget at all – it should set its tax levels and then spend within the level over the business cycle, not annually, because an annual level of micromanagement is not currently possible.
      
      I am not vouching for anyone’s set of numbers at all, btw. I am only criticizing your arithmetic from your numbers and your dinner examples. I am not making an argument from morality. I wanted the entire GWB tax cut to go away according to law and then have the discussion about how to reform the tax code so that it is simpler and more transparent. I agree that BHO’s extension of the GWB tax cuts for the “middle class” was a pander, and it is the standard pander of everyone in DC. Something for nothing.
      
      Rereading what you have written, I am starting to get the notion that you think JNC’s flat tax is not the gold standard of taxation – that you favor a per capita tax, regardless of income.
      
      LikeLike
    - ScottC, on January 3, 2013 at 8:29 am said:
      
      mark:
      
      As Mike said, the real numbers prove your point without the innaccurate spin you put on them.
      
      What “inaccurate spin”? Please be specific.
      
      Suppose the top 1% earned 28% of all income in 1980 and 36% now. Then the top 1% in JNC’s actual flat tax system would have paid 28% of all taxes and 36% now. Something like that has happened…
      
      I know. I made precisely the same point when I pointed out earlier that:
      
      In a sane world, voters would be thankful for someone who makes a huge amount of income, because that fact alone, even with just a flat tax much less the stupidly progressive one we have, would mean the government has more money to spend on its pet projects than it otherwise would have.
      
      The folks who get hit hardest in our “progressive” tax system are families like mine, who have two professional incomes, not financial gurus, whose dividends are somehow less taxable than my earned income.
      
      There are lots of reasons to bitch about our tax system, not just its progressivity, and the disparate treatment of different “kinds” of income is one. But you don’t see me advocating that certain of those injustices be increased. And if Obama ever tries to increase the disparity between dividend tax rates and ordinary income tax rates by arguing that those paying ordinary income tax rates are not paying their “fair share” relative to dividend tax payers, then I will be just as vocal and biting in my opposition as I am to what just happened.
      
      Neither Mike nor I are talking about a moral issue. Only you are.
      
      Exactly. You (and Mike?) are ignoring the very point that I am making, which is that the arguments advanced in order to pass these tax hikes, Obama’s moral arguments that the top income earners have not been paying “their fair share”, are blatant and obvious lies. The top income earners already pay far, far more than their “fair share”. You may wish to turn a blind eye to the moral aspect of the discussion, but I do not. The moral argument, namely what obligation in justice does any individual have towards the upkeep of the government that presides over him, is the central issue in the debate over what tax rates “should” be in a progressive tax system, or whether the system should be progressive at all. Obama knows this is the central issue, which is why he frames his arguments as he does. Congressional Dems know it. And I know it. I wish you did, too.
      
      The aggregate share of the income tax burden of a group of individuals is dependent on its aggregate share of income, in the end.
      
      Yes, this is true by definition simply because of the tax code under which we operate, and so is therefore a totally uninteresting point as far as I am concerned. What is interesting, to me anyway, is the obvious desire of Obama (and anyone else who advocates for a more progressive tax system) to increase even further the burden borne by that small minority who already bear the greatest burden. Funnily enough, that was precisely the point I made in the comment that started this thread.
      
      Rereading what you have written, I am starting to get the notion that you think JNC’s flat tax is not the gold standard of taxation – that you favor a per capita tax, regardless of income.
      
      I have explained several times here, the first time almost exactly 1 year ago, that I am philosophically opposed to any kind of tax based on income. In my view the “Gold Standard” of taxation is a consumption based tax because it is based on a measure of what one takes out of the economy rather than what one adds to it. I can think of no reason in justice why a billionaire with living and spending habits precisely the same as someone who makes $50k a year would be obligated to pay more towards the upkeep of the government than that person making $50k.
      
      I regard a flat tax to be the Gold Standard for income based taxes, but not of all possible tax systems. We should at least be honest that the real “justification” for any income based tax system, whether it is flat or progressive, is not that it is indeed just or fair, but rather that, as the bank robber Willie Sutton is reported to have justified his occupation, that is where the money is. Anyone concerned about real justice ought to reflect on that parallel.
      
      LikeLike
    - ScottC, on January 3, 2013 at 9:21 am said:
      
      mark:
      
      BTW, here is your response to my original explanation of why I favor a consumption tax over an income tax.
      
      LikeLike
    - markinaustin, on January 3, 2013 at 9:41 am said:
      
      I still favor consumption and transaction taxes. For the same reasons I did then. And I see some additional merit to the notion that “a choice” is involved, but that would not be the driver for me. The issue of “personal choice” is attractive to me as a selling point, because some folks who would oppose consumption and transaction taxes might be persuaded to try them instead of income taxes.
      
      You and I then had a big discussion of small but universal transaction taxes. Remember?
      
      LikeLike
    - ScottC, on January 3, 2013 at 10:14 am said:
      
      Mark:
      
      Remember?
      
      Sure. I had misunderstood just how small you wanted that tax to be. A transaction tax alongside a consumption tax might be tolerable if income taxes were eliminated entirely. But income taxes are decidedly immoral.
      
      On a different note, I find your consistent refusal to recognize the moral aspect of or contemplate moral arguments regarding tax law to be very peculiar. It seems to me that any action which would compel another to do something against their will is subject to moral judgments. (That’s not to say that no such compulsion is ever justified, only that whether or not it is justified is indeed a relevant question.) What distinguishes a law that compels a person to hand over X% of his income from a law that compels a person to, say, sit in the back of the bus such that the latter can be subject to moral analysis, but the former cannot be? Or do you also insist that morality has nothing to say about the latter, either?
      
      LikeLike
    - markinaustin, on January 3, 2013 at 10:52 am said:
      
      Scott – It is easy for me. I believe that the idea of government by consent of the governed, with majority rule, with protections of the basic freedoms of the minority from the majority, is a better construct than any alternative, even if it is imperfect in practice. I find our terribly opaque and convoluted tax code, riddled with special interest exceptions, to be irrational. Did you know that on the corporate side the rates graduate to a top rate for small biz and then decline?
      
      The stew of legislation is built on compromises between persons who think their views are moral or just [and some who are just feathering their nests, as well]. For me, taxes become immoral when they are confiscatory, or when they are so burdensome to commerce or the individual that they are destructive. I’ll save my outrage for a tax that puts someone out of business or takes food out of a baby’s mouth. If I were outraged at all our irrational laws I would never get any work done. I will contemplate a moral argument about taxation if the taxation is destroying commerce or individuals.
      
      Do you think our prohibition of various drugs, especially MJ, is immoral? If you don’t, but you think it is irrational and counterproductive, than you know how I feel about taxation, within some ordinary range.
      
      LikeLike
    - ScottC, on January 3, 2013 at 12:50 pm said:
      
      mark:
      
      I believe that the idea of government by consent of the governed, with majority rule, with protections of the basic freedoms of the minority from the majority, is a better construct than any alternative, even if it is imperfect in practice.
      
      Why do you want “protections for the basic freedoms of the minority”? Is it because you think it would be wrong, unjust, or immoral for a majority to violate the basic freedoms of the minority? (I certainly do.) It seems to me that under your belief, any law passed by a majority must be examined to see if it violates the basic freedoms of the minority. This includes tax laws, which is why I do not find it easy to ignore the moral implications of tax laws, and I remain puzzled at your insistence on ignoring them.
      
      Surely, if the above is indeed what you believe, you must necessarily ask yourself whether or not a given tax law (as any other law) violates the basic freedoms of the minority. Is it really your belief that an individual’s basic freedoms encompasses nothing more than the absence of “destruction”? That anything short of “destruction” can be legitimately imposed on an individual? I find that difficult to believe, but that is the only way to reconcile your stated beliefs regarding government and your posture towards the tax laws they generate.
      
      Discriminating against blacks by, say, requiring that they give up their seats to white people on a bus does not constitute the “destruction” of anyone. If you find such a law objectionable (on moral grounds, perhaps?), then it seems that protecting the basic freedoms of the minority does indeed encompass more than just the absence of “destruction”. Which brings us back to your posture towards tax laws…
      
      BTW, I remain interested what it is of mine that you think is “inaccurate spin”.
      
      Did you know that on the corporate side the rates graduate to a top rate for small biz and then decline?
      
      I did not.
      
      Do you think our prohibition of various drugs, especially MJ, is immoral?
      
      For the most part, yes.
      
      LikeLike
    - markinaustin, on January 3, 2013 at 1:41 pm said:
      
      Is it because you think it would be wrong, unjust, or immoral for a majority to violate the basic freedoms of the minority? Yes.
      
      It seems to me that under your belief, any law passed by a majority must be examined to see if it violates the basic freedoms of the minority. Should be examined in that light by the lege, and within the framework of the Constitution, must be by the court system.
      
      Is it really your belief that an individual’s basic freedoms encompasses nothing more than the absence of “destruction”? Yes, in a tautological sense. If the right is not destroyed, it exists. For example, the right to property use is somewhat curtailed by ordinary zoning, but when zoning is used to make your view lot unusable after you purchase it so the city can then condemn it cheaply, the zoning has destroyed your right.
      
      There are grey areas for this, for me. At what point does tax become not merely inconvenient, but burdensome? I certainly can give examples from experience. Client has many good years and owns a substantial contracting yard, worth $2M. Economy tanks [1987 in Austin, S&L crisis]. He makes no money in ’88. Can’t pay the property tax without borrowing, but cannot borrow due to the crisis. His property tax was actually crushing and forced a bankruptcy. Nothing was gained by crushing him – not by the taxing authority nor by the people he let go, nor by him and his family. AMT has blindsided many folks completely, and dangerously. Another client had bookkeeper office manager who stole $1.5M over 7 years – $600K by not paying WT to IRS. IRS takes six years to notify my client. He’s working for IRS the rest of his life now, even if I eventually get the penalties waived. There are horrible tax stories and every small biz lawyer has them. I would work to change IRS’ collection practices, which I believe to be immoral. And I think the AMT is immoral because it sets a trap for the unwary. But I can’t give you a bright line true rule.
      
      LikeLike
    - ScottC, on January 3, 2013 at 3:15 pm said:
      
      mark:
      
      Should be examined in that light by the lege, and within the framework of the Constitution, must be by the court system.
      
      No, this is circular reasoning. The framework of the constitution exists in order to achieve the end of protecting the basic freedom’s of the minority, but in order to judge if the constitution is indeed doing that, one needs to have a measure that exists independently of the framework itself. Under your reasoning, in 1800 the basic freedoms of a black slave in Mississippi were necessarily being protected because, within the framework of the constitution, the lege/court system said it was so. That is, of course, nonsense.
      
      Besides which, appeals to the lege or courts do not absolve you of the need to make a personal determination in order to know whether or not you yourself should support the law in question. Citizens must first make the determination themselves, to know whether or not they should vote for the law, or vote for the people who want to pass it. And, of course, courts can be wrong and themselves engage in injustices. For years the lege/courts held that forcing blacks to the back of the bus was not a violation of basic freedoms. If everyone deferred to the judgment of the lege, no one would have challenged the obvious injustice. I doubt you needed a court to tell you that that such discriminatory laws violated basic freedoms.
      
      Yes, in a tautological sense. If the right is not destroyed, it exists
      
      I doubt this is really what you meant by “destroyed” when you said “I will contemplate a moral argument about taxation if the taxation is destroying commerce or individuals.” If indeed you did mean simply the destruction of a right, then quite plainly you should contemplate moral arguments about income taxation because quite plainly it does destroy a right, namely the right to ownership over some portion of one’s income. As of Jan 1, some small minority of people no longer have the same right of exercise over their income that they had last year. Their right has been destroyed. Why don’t you care in the slightest about this obvious lack of protection for the freedoms of the minority?
      
      For example, the right to property use is somewhat curtailed by ordinary zoning
      
      Not if the zoning was attached to the property before it was obtained. But if it was attached after the property was obtained, it is indeed a destruction of a right, and it doesn’t matter how big or small the curtailment is. You may argue that it is a minor rights violation, but it is, nonetheless, a rights violation.
      
      Lastly, what is it with people on this site and their willingness to toss around pejorative characterizations about what others (particularly what I) say, but then refuse to substantiate or address questions about those pejorative characterizations? First okie, then Mike, now you. I’ve asked you twice now what I said that qualifies as “inaccurate spin”, and you’ve ignored me both times. You can say whatever nasty things you want about what I write, but if you do you should at least have the courtesy to respond to questions about them. I’ve tried to be polite about it, but WTF, mark?
      
      LikeLike
    - markinaustin, on January 3, 2013 at 4:03 pm said:
      
      I’ve tried to be polite about it, but WTF, mark?
      
      From the perspective of all dollars bearing the same burden, what you wrote seemed hyperbolic and angst ridden and innacurately spun. Once you explained that you actually viewed the personal income tax as so immoral that you favored a per capita tax I understood why we could not see your perspective as anything but arithmetically overblown while you thought the arithmetic we were using was irrelevant. I honestly don’t know anyone who would posit that each earner or person should pay the same amount of tax but you, and thus I, and I assume Mike, could not understand what you were saying, expecially when we thought we were agreeing with you in principle.
      
      LikeLike
    - ScottC, on January 3, 2013 at 5:16 pm said:
      
      mark:
      
      I honestly don’t know anyone who would posit that each earner or person should pay the same amount of tax but you…
      
      I never posited such a thing and I do not. I specifically advocated for a consumption tax, not a per capita tax. Which I thought you also advocated for, although for different reasons.
      
      In any event, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to discuss the proper method of raising revenues without also, and indeed first, agreeing to the proper role of government and the expenditures necessary to fulfill that role. For example, if one believes that the proper role of the federal government is wealth or income equalization, as many on the left seem to believe, then taxation of wealth and income naturally follows as a necessity. If, however, one believes that the proper role of the federal government is that established in the constitution and as originally conceived by the founders, as far too few people do, then an income tax is wholly unnecessary, and probably even objectionable.
      
      LikeLike
    - markinaustin, on January 3, 2013 at 5:23 pm said:
      
      I can think of no reason in justice why a billionaire with living and spending habits precisely the same as someone who makes $50k a year would be obligated to pay more towards the upkeep of the government than that person making $50k.
      
      I understand that sentence to mean you think per capita tax is more just than flat % taxation.
      
      LikeLike
    - ScottC, on January 3, 2013 at 9:30 pm said:
      
      mark:
      
      I understand that sentence to mean you think per capita tax is more just than flat % taxation.
      
      In the context provided by the sentence immediately preceding the one you quoted, it was made explicitly clear that I was pointing out that a consumption tax, not a per capita tax, is more just than an income tax. Even without that context it is pretty clear that I was talking about a consumption tax and not a per capita tax. If I was talking about simply a per capita tax, there would have been reason to reference the living and spending (ie consumption) habits of the two people being compared.
      
      LikeLike
    - markinaustin, on January 3, 2013 at 10:12 pm said:
      
      Point taken, re per capita. I also agree that “fair share” is BS and that all taxation theory is about getting the revenue where it can be had. I also agree that it is nearly impossible to get the federal gummint to spend within its revenue stream. I think the cause of that is more structural than partisan. I believe if there were no welfare state [I think a modest welfare state is a good thing] we would have the same structural problems, and that the spending on everything that is not the welfare state would expand to exceed the revenue stream.
      
      I think the personal income tax system is irrational and opaque and should be replaced by a system that is simpler and more transparent and more consistent and more easily understood.
      
      I simply do not understand the notion that there is only a moral and an immoral tax system. Again, we are down to your belief that there is a discernible objective morality at play and my belief that there is only a set of political compromises at play. That is as far as we can get.
      
      LikeLike
    - ScottC, on January 4, 2013 at 6:04 am said:
      
      mark:
      
      I also agree that “fair share” is BS and that all taxation theory is about getting the revenue where it can be had.
      
      To clarify, I don’t think that the notion that someone does or does not pay their “fair share” is BS. I just think that Obama’s specific claims about who does and does not pay their fair share is BS. Worse than BS, it is a complete inversion of the truth and is ultimately destructive to the culture and the nation.
      
      I also agree that it is nearly impossible to get the federal gummint to spend within its revenue stream. I think the cause of that is more structural than partisan. I believe if there were no welfare state [I think a modest welfare state is a good thing] we would have the same structural problems, and that the spending on everything that is not the welfare state would expand to exceed the revenue stream.
      
      I think a look at the history of the federal debt suggests you are incorrect. There are three obvious spikes in the growth of the federal debt associated with the Civil War, World War I and World War II. If we ignore the spikes for those discrete events, it is obvious that the government spent within its means for most of our history, but that the growing national debt began in the lat 1910’s/early 1920’s, and has been trending upward every since. I don’t think it is mere coincidence that this trend began a) right after the passage of the 16th amendment and the creation of an income tax and b) has correlated with the rise of federal power and the growth of the federal welfare state. I suspect the inability to get the fed to spend within its revenue stream is very much ideologically driven.
      
      I simply do not understand the notion that there is only a moral and an immoral tax system.
      
      As I said earlier, any time force or the threat of it is used to compel someone to do something they would not willingly do, notions of justice, right/wrong, are applicable. The use of force against another in any instance is either moral or it is not. And all law involves the use of force or the threat thereof. When a law forces a person with dark skin to sit at the back of the bus, that law is either just or it is unjust. When the law forces a person who contracted to pay for certain services to actually pay for those services, that law is either just or it is unjust. And when the law forces a person to hand over a certain percentage of what he has earned from his labor, that law, too, is either just or unjust. I doubt very much that you have a problem understanding how moral notions apply to the first two examples, so I don’t understand why you have such a difficult time grasping why they also apply to the third. Certainly I have not yet seen any explanation as to what distinguishes the third from the others such that it alone is rendered immune to judgments about its justice.
      
      Again, we are down to your belief that there is a discernible objective morality at play and my belief that there is only a set of political compromises at play.
      
      The fact that Obama employs the arguments that he does in support of the tax policies he wants to impose does not support your belief. He got elected arguing very explicitly that a certain demographic has not been paying its “fair share”, and that he would rectify that unjust situation. He makes that argument because he knows that notions of justice and injustice are essential to what “the people” ultimately want as law. Perceptions regarding the justness of who pays what in support of the state is at the very heart of “the public’s” choice in how to fund the government.
      
      LikeLike
    - yellojkt, on January 3, 2013 at 11:10 am said:
      
      If income taxes are inherently immoral, why do most religious organizations rely on tithes?
      
      LikeLike
    - ScottC, on January 3, 2013 at 11:43 am said:
      
      yello:
      
      If income taxes are inherently immoral, why do most religious organizations rely on tithes?
      
      Religious tithes are voluntary, not compulsory. Taxes are compulsory, not voluntary.
      
      LikeLike
lmsinca, on January 3, 2013 at 6:41 am said:

So I wanted to share a little information I’ve discovered in the last couple of days and I’m sorry but it’s wildly off topic. Our youngest daughter gave me a six month subscription to Ancestry.com for Christmas and I’ve been exploring the family tree a little.

I wasn’t able to get very far with my father’s side as I’m only five generations away from all of my gggrandparents immigrating from Germany and I don’t have access to the International records yet, but I may look into that as we have the same problem on my husband’s side. His grandparents on both sides immigrated from Poland and Scotland respectively.

I have been having a lot of fun on my mother’s side of the family though. It’s hysterical to me knowing how my father’s father looked down on my mother’s family as being poor white trash now that I know the historical roots of her family on her mother’s side.

I’ve been able to trace her family all the way back to original settlers and have gone back to their origins in Europe which include England, Germany, Scotland and Switzerland in some cases to the 1560’s with names, family crests, immigration records, etc.

What’s even more fascinating is finding out that I am a Daughter of the American Revolution via one Col. Andrew Hampton (1713-1805) and his son Jonathan Hampton who also fought in the Revolutionary War would have been a cousin of sorts. I have seen both of their headstones now.

I’m just getting started but have also found I am a direct descendant of soldiers in the Confederacy………….hahahaha.

Anyway, if I’m pre-occupied you’ll know why.

Have a great year everyone.

Glad to see Scott and McWing have returned, good luck with your debates.

LikeLike

Reply
- markinaustin, on January 3, 2013 at 7:06 am said:
  
  That is great fun, Lulu. On my dad’s paternal side we dead end at 1819 in Malmo, Sweden. On his maternal side, my grandmother was born in Rumania – that’s about it. On my mother’s maternal side we can trace back to the mid 18th C. in Austria-Hungary [now Czech state, I think]. But on my maternal grandfather’s side we can trace back to the 10th Century! Spain-to-France-to-Italy-to-Austria-to the USA in the late 1890s. My maternal grandfather’s first cousin was a colonel in the Austrian Army until the Anschluss in 1938. He painstakingly researched that side of the family.
  The escape of my many generation ago ancestor from the Spanish Inquisition in the 1490s was in part by riding a half-barrel sled down the Pyrenees.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  - yellojkt, on January 3, 2013 at 7:13 am said:
    
    A great uncle traced my father’s family back to three Irish brothers who came from County Mongahan but the trail goes cold because the parish with all the birth records had burned down and everybody in that town has my some last name.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
    - markinaustin, on January 3, 2013 at 7:26 am said:
      
      YJ, in continental Europe it is hard to trace back before 1805 b/c pre-Napoleon the small towns had no birth records, for the most part. For families that had readers and books in every generation, 1500 is about as far as most can go [printing press]. An occasional Jewish family, like my maternal grandfather’s, kept written records of every birth, death, and marriage, but I honestly don’t know another European demographic of commoner that was literate in every generation. I think the clergy kept written records in the small town churches in many places. I recall that Ancestry.com looks for that stuff.
      
      And then the parish burns down, of course.
      
      LikeLike
yellojkt, on January 3, 2013 at 6:46 am said:

I went through the chart show and the biggest flaw in it was ignoring the effect of payroll taxes on federal taxes. For lower income workers, the payroll tax (especially if the employer portion is counted) is a far higher tax burden than the income tax. For this reason, just looking at income tax and refundable credits gives an unbalanced picture.

Mark’s Wikipedia chart mirrors a lot of other analyses that I have seen in that the total federal tax burden is steeply progressive up to about the fourth quartrile income where it then starts to flatten out dramatically with a slight dip at the very top end. I often joke that billionaires like Forbes and Perot no longer advocate a flat tax because they don’t want their taxes to go up. The excessively low rate on capital gains has made it better than a flat tax to them.

It will be interesting to see what the net effect of the newly enacted rates will be and whether the system becomes genuinely progressive all the way to the top.

LikeLike

Reply
lmsinca, on January 3, 2013 at 7:33 am said:

BTW, just for the sake of humoring me, here’s most of the information I’ve found on my grandfather, seven generations removed. I am a descendant of his daughter, he had a lot of children, Mary “Polly” Hampton. There appear to be two Andrew Hamptons living in NC at the same time and some discrepancy whether it was the same man with two families or actually two different men. As far as I can tell if there were two, I appear to be descended from the one who actually did fight in the war as his son also fought who was my gggggrandmother’s brother, if that makes sense.

Now I’ll leave you to your own devices, just wanted to share how fascinating this is for me.

http://www.adkins9.net/individual.php?pid=I3093

LikeLike

Reply
novahockey, on January 3, 2013 at 7:51 am said:

my paternal great-grandfather emigrated from the Ukraine before WWI. Not all of his family did. Contact was lost. who knows that really happened, but I have some thoughts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

LikeLike

Reply
Mike, on January 3, 2013 at 4:48 pm said:

Scott:

So sorry that I had to do actual work today that I didn’t have time answer your questions quickly enough for your satisfaction.

Why “but”?

Because we are talking about income taxes. You have a problem in general with taxation on income, but that is the system we have currently. So, your beef should be with the 16th Amendment and the those who ratified it over 100 years ago, not the fiscal cliff legislation.

What did I say that you think is irrational hyperbole?

A sampling of phrases from your posts:

“this economic and moral abomination”

“The left is totally shameless in its depraved desire”

“idiotic and immoral progressive politics … this grotesque addiction to spending other people’s money”

LikeLike

Reply
- ScottC, on January 3, 2013 at 9:13 pm said:
  
  Mike:
  
  So sorry that I had to do actual work today that I didn’t have time answer your questions quickly enough for your satisfaction.
  
  No worries. I threw you on the list to give it more weight, but it probably wasn’t fair of me to do so. Many apologies.
  
  So, your beef should be with the 16th Amendment and the those who ratified it over 100 years ago, not the fiscal cliff legislation.
  
  My beef is with both, actually. It is true that in a sensible world, the 16th amendment would not exist, but that fact doesn’t excuse the lies about who does and does not pay their “fair share” by demagogues like Obama , or the depravity of his supporters who cheer the disparate treatment of a small and electorally defenseless minority of people.
  
  A sampling of phrases from your posts:
  
  None of those are either hyperbolic or irrational. They are all logical conclusions based on observations of what Obama and his fellow travellers have done and policies they have enacted. If you think government discrimination against people of, say, a certain skin color is a moral abomination, I’m not at all sure why you think government discrimination against people of a certain income level is any better.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
ashot, on January 4, 2013 at 7:05 am said:

He got elected arguing very explicitly that a certain demographic has not been paying its “fair share”, and that he would rectify that unjust situation.

That was one thing he argued. He also made a whole bunch of other arguments. Maybe some/many people voted for Obama due to their support for his moral argument with respect to the share of taxes paid by the wealthy. Maybe others voted for Obama in spite of that argument. I’m not sure who Mark voted for, but it’s pretty clear if he voted for Obama it woudl be in spite of Obama’s fair share arguments. I’m probably misinterpreting your comments, but I am not quite as comfortable with equating Obama’s election to the wholesale acceptance, by voters, of Obama’s argument with respect to the wealthy.

I’ve said it before, but I’m fine with raising taxes on the top 5-10% given the fact that we have a large deficit and I do not think raising taxes on the middle class is a bad idea given the stagnation of income while other costs, health care in paritcular, continue to rise. I should say that I am not Ok with the fiscal cliff deal’s lack of spending cuts. It’s irresponsible not to cut spending at this point.

LikeLike

Reply
Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on January 4, 2013 at 7:08 am said:

It seems pretty obvious the the 16th Amendment is what has caused the debt problem. I think a great argument can be made that the growth of the Federal government was constrained because it’s revenue sources were constrained. Once that was removed, gluttony.

I’d argue that was the design though, the Federal government is not/was not supposed to be doing the things it is/has done.

They don’t call me the master of the obvious for nothing! Plus, this is such a highbrow thread I wanted to be able to say I participated.

LikeLike

Reply
- ashot, on January 4, 2013 at 7:16 am said:
  
  Plus, this is such a highbrow thread I wanted to be able to say I participated.
  
  Totally with you on this part. The discussion in this thread was fantastic and I felt completely intellectually inadequate to participate until my ego made me participate.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  - novahockey, on January 4, 2013 at 7:27 am said:
    
    I wanted to be able to say I participated
    
    [votes present]
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
  - ScottC, on January 4, 2013 at 7:36 am said:
    
    ashot:
    
    and I felt completely intellectually inadequate to participate
    
    I hope that isn’t true.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
    - ashot, on January 4, 2013 at 8:02 am said:
      
      Scott- My comment was a bit hyperbolic…but you guys were covering the issues so well I didn’t feel as if I had too much to contribute.
      
      LikeLike
Mike, on January 4, 2013 at 7:38 am said:

Scott:

None of those are either hyperbolic or irrational.

Obviously, I disagree. Since we have been alive, the US has had a progressive income tax system — it is something we have always known and lived with. There have been a number of changes, up and down, to the tax rates during our lifetimes. To focus on one particular income tax hike and call it a moral abomination is irrational and hyperbolic.

If you think government discrimination against people of, say, a certain skin color is a moral abomination, I’m not at all sure why you think government discrimination against people of a certain income level is any better.

There is a big difference to me between (relatively) immutable characteristics like skin color or gender and something that changes over the course of time for everyone like income. The fact of the matter is that the specific list of individuals that make up each tax brackets changes from year to year, something the Tax Foundation’s data show for millionaires.

Also, I don’t view the collection of taxes in general to be in the same league of moral reprehensibility as slavery or internment. Perhaps that is not the same for you.

a small and electorally defenseless minority of people.

I would argue that people like Charles and David Koch (or George Soros) are not electorally defenseless. They may each only have one vote, but their money/speech certainly has persuaded many others to vote like them. And I would argue that the CATO Institute has been instrumental in shaping conservative/libertarian policy and bringing it to the mainstream.

LikeLike

Reply
- ScottC, on January 4, 2013 at 9:15 am said:
  
  Mike:
  
  To focus on one particular income tax hike and call it a moral abomination is irrational and hyperbolic.
  
  I don’t see why. One particular income tax hike is what we are faced with right now, so we are discussing the merits of that. If you want, I’d be happy to discuss past decisions and past politicians in equally strong terms…they surely deserve it. But Obama is president now, so to me it seems far more rational to discuss the moral shortcomings of him than, say, FDR.
  
  BTW, the fact that an unjust system has been in place for a long time is no reason not to condemn, even in strong terms, attempts to make it even more unjust.
  
  There is a big difference to me between (relatively) immutable characteristics like skin color or gender and something that changes over the course of time for everyone like income.
  
  I don’t see a difference. Do you think laws dictating that, say, people who make less than $25k per year have to give up their seats on a bus to people who make more than $25k per year are somehow more acceptable than laws dictating that people with dark skin have to give up their seats to people with lighter skin? I don’t.
  
  Also, I don’t view the collection of taxes in general to be in the same league of moral reprehensibility as slavery or internment.
  
  I didn’t say it was in the same league, but I definitely think it is the same game. If the question is whether I would rather be singled out by the government to pay a higher tax rate than the vast majority of people, or singled out by the government to be enslaved, I would choose the former, easily. There are, of course, degrees of persecution. But I object to both, and I still think anyone who advocates for either has a pretty screwed up moral compass.
  
  I would argue that people like Charles and David Koch (or George Soros) are not electorally defenseless.
  
  And I would argue that a) the law Obama just signed doesn’t target just Charles and David Koch, but rather targets anyone whose income is greater than $400k, and b) each one of those people has but one vote and together they do not constitute a majority of voters (not even remotely close, actually), and so they are, by definition, electorally defenseless from whatever a majority may decide to do to them. That doesn’t mean they have no capacity to attempt to persuade others outside of their demographic to stop taking their money, but from an electoral perspective, they have no power as a minority.
  
  And I would argue that the CATO Institute has been instrumental in shaping conservative/libertarian policy and bringing it to the mainstream.
  
  I agree, although CATO has not been nearly successful enough in purging the culture of the pernicious notions under which people like Obama operate.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
novahockey, on January 4, 2013 at 8:40 am said:

“progressive income tax system — it is something we have always known and lived with”

I can’t stress enough how much I disagree with the progressive nature of the income tax. While the premise of the income tax is the root of my distaste, it bothers me that we’ve codified the idea that some are more responsible than others. But, I guess I lost that argument in 1916.

LikeLike

Reply
- ScottC, on January 4, 2013 at 9:26 am said:
  
  nova:
  
  But, I guess I lost that argument in 1916.
  
  Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
novahockey, on January 4, 2013 at 9:45 am said:

Hell no!

LikeLike

Reply
- ScottC, on January 4, 2013 at 9:52 am said:
  
  Words of wisdom:
  
  The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can’t get and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time is made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods. ~ H.L. Mencken
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  - markinaustin, on January 4, 2013 at 10:42 am said:
    
    Mencken is worth quoting. The structural problem in American government is not one we are going to fix in my lifetime. The one constant I have seen since HS is the HoR and its determination of the pursestrings. Typically, each Rep “takes care of” his CD and his contributors, who used to be local but are now Godknows where. This competition for pie slices has often been met by the demand for more pie. Y’all know the obvious examples: airports with no traffic, weapons the DoD does not want, bridges to nowhere, etc. The Base Closing Commission was good. If that idea could be replicated…
    
    When the Cold War ended, I naively thought we would have balanced budgets over time, surpluses in good years, deficits in bad years, evening out. Neither R nor D HoRs were interested, save for the Gingrich – Clinton moment. Divided Govt. should be the way we get balance, not deadlock.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
    - ScottC, on January 4, 2013 at 2:26 pm said:
      
      mark:
      
      When the Cold War ended, I naively thought we would have balanced budgets over time, surpluses in good years, deficits in bad years, evening out.
      
      I imagine we could eliminate the entire defense budget and within 20 years we’d be running regular deficits again. It is the modern welfare state and a culture infused with progressive politics that drives spending and deficits, not anything else. Just look at Europe where defense spending pales in comparison to ours and they have an even more progressive tax system. France has run a budget deficit in every year since the 1970’s, and it isn’t because of defense spending. It seems that even the disciplined Germans have run deficits in 14 of the last 16 years.
      
      With an electorate voting itself more and more government-provided benefits and a political class happy to promise them just that, get used to deficit spending.
      
      LikeLike
novahockey, on January 4, 2013 at 10:09 am said:

I need to read more Mencken

LikeLike

Reply
Mike, on January 4, 2013 at 10:28 am said:

Scott:

I don’t see why.

Perhaps you use the word “abomination” differently than I do. I reserve that word for the worst of the worst and a 4.6% increase on the top rate of high income earners (among other things) doesn’t reach that level.

I object to both, and I still think anyone who advocates for either has a pretty screwed up moral compass.

Collection of taxes in general is a necessity for funding a government. Allowing individuals to pay what they want is not a viable way of collecting funds — how many people actually pay sales taxes on their internet purchases? So, collection of your favored consumption tax would still be a moral abomination because collection would be forced/coerced at some level.

so they are, by definition, electorally defenseless

Elections are not just about single voters going to the ballot box. Elections are also about getting people to vote the way you want them to. By your definition, unions are electorally defenseless because they comprise a small minority of the population. Do you deny their outsized effect on elections?

LikeLike

Reply
- ScottC, on January 4, 2013 at 12:47 pm said:
  
  Mike:
  
  I reserve that word for the worst of the worst and a 4.6% increase on the top rate of high income earners (among other things) doesn’t reach that level.
  
  I think that peddling lies about, demonizing and targeting laws at a tiny minority of the population does indeed reach that level. In fact the only reason I use the word abomination is because I am moderating what I really think about Obama and the people who support these policies.
  
  Collection of taxes in general is a necessity for funding a government. Allowing individuals to pay what they want is not a viable way of collecting funds…
  
  Yes it is a necessity, and I agree that people should not just pay “what they want”, which is why I have never suggested such a thing, but instead have suggested an method for determining the amount of support an individual should be required to provide the government other than by income level.
  
  So, collection of your favored consumption tax would still be a moral abomination because collection would be forced/coerced at some level.
  
  Incorrect. This assumes that the application of force/coercion was in itself necessarily a moral abomination. That would imply that literally all law is objectionable (since all law relies on force) and would make me an anarchist, which I am not as I made plain to mark earlier. I am not opposed to tax collection “in general”. I am opposed to taxing people based on their income, and I am especially opposed to tax laws that discriminate against people based on their income, as progressive tax systems are specifically designed to do.
  
  Do you deny their outsized effect on elections?
  
  I don’t know if unions members currently have an “outsized” effect, but it is pretty clear that whatever influence they wield is much less now than in the past precisely because their numbers have shrunk so drastically, and that the power they once had was a direct function of the size of the union population at the time. I imagine that if union membership had been limited to 1-2% of the population, the same size as the demographic that Obama has targeted, they never would have wielded any power. Also worth noting is that whatever influence union members may have derives from organized and collective action. The demographic that Obama has targeted with his rhetoric and laws do not belong to any collective organization and therefore do not engage in any collective action as a group.
  
  Perhaps they should.
  
  BTW, do you agree now that there really is no difference in kind between government discrimination on the basis of a mutable characteristic like income and government discrimination on the basis of an immutable characteristic like skin color?
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
Mike, on January 4, 2013 at 1:47 pm said:

Scott:

In fact the only reason I use the word abomination is because I am moderating what I really think about Obama and the people who support these policies.

Therein lies our difference. Of the things I get worked up about, income taxes are pretty low on the list. Clearly, they are near the top of yours. So, my “irrational hyperbole” is your “moderating” on this issue. I’m sure there are issues that the reverse is true.

I don’t know if unions members currently have an “outsized” effect, but it is pretty clear that whatever influence they wield is much less now than in the past precisely because their numbers have shrunk so drastically, and that the power they once had was a direct function of the size of the union population at the time.

Just for reference, the membership in labor unions in this country is ~12% or ~15M people. Slightly less than the LA metro area.

The demographic that Obama has targeted with his rhetoric and laws do not belong to any collective organization and therefore do not engage in any collective action as a group.

No, but they have certainly contributed an outsized proportion of political “speech,” with most of that “speech” supporting the GOP. Of course, a substantial fraction of that “speech” came from one source (the Adelsons).

BTW, do you agree now that there really is no difference in kind between government discrimination on the basis of a mutable characteristic like income and government discrimination on the basis of an immutable characteristic like skin color?

No. I chose not to address this because there is no way we are going to see eye-to-eye on this matter and racism may be one of the issues where my “moderating” response would be viewed by you as “irrational hyperbole.”

LikeLike

Reply
- ScottC, on January 4, 2013 at 4:52 pm said:
  
  Mike:
  
  I chose not to address this because there is no way we are going to see eye-to-eye on this matter and racism may be one of the issues where my “moderating” response would be viewed by you as “irrational hyperbole.”
  
  It’s too bad you won’t address this. If there really is a morally relevant difference between government discrimination against someone based on skin tone and government discrimination based on income level, I am very interested in hearing it. And I suspect we very much agree about the nature of racial discrimination, so there is virtually no chance that I would characterize your views of racism as “irrational hyperbole”.
  
  I think that the reason some people have a hard time seeing the injustice in government discrimination against people based in income level is that they have lived with it their entire lives (as you pointed out) and so they have come to accept it as simply The Way Things Are. This is similar to many people in the south who had grown up with race discrimination and saw nothing wrong with it simply because it was The Way Things Are.
  
  Virtually no one accepts discrimination based on skin color as just the way things are anymore, and hopefully someday there will no longer be people blind to the injustice of discrimination based on income.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on January 4, 2013 at 3:57 pm said:

“With an electorate voting itself more and more government-provided benefits and a political class happy to promise them just that, get used to deficit spending.”

As Instapundit says, “What can’t go on forever, won’t.”

LikeLike

Reply
lmsinca, on January 4, 2013 at 8:39 pm said:

I’m sorry, I’ve kept quiet for several days on this subject but calling those of us who support a progressive tax system blind to the injustice of discrimination based on income is going too far for me.

One of the primary functions of discrimination, and the one that makes it so evil, is limiting the opportunity of the person being discriminated against in comparison to the group doing the discriminating. I hardly think a slight increase in the tax rate for people above the 400K to 450K threshold qualifies as the kind of discrimination that compares to the centuries or lifetimes of lost opportunity we’ve all witnessed in our own country.

My taxes went up this year also, payroll and sales, I don’t feel the need to whine about it and pretend I’m losing something of value in such grand terms.

I think it’s possible to have a great debate about taxes and explore the possibilities of a better system than the one we have. We’ve actually done that quite a bit here and I’m certainly open to some changes but I think using discrimination as a basis for judging people on tax policy is a real stretch.

LikeLike

Reply
- ScottC, on January 5, 2013 at 5:55 am said:
  
  lms:
  
  One of the primary functions of discrimination, and the one that makes it so evil, is limiting the opportunity of the person being discriminated against in comparison to the group doing the discriminating.
  
  So then you think that it is OK for poor white people to discriminate against rich black people? I doubt it.
  
  Anyway I think we have to be clear that what we are talking about is government discrimination. One of the bedrock foundations of just government is equality before the law. Government discrimination destroys this foundation, regardless of how much money the victim happens to make.
  
  My taxes went up this year also…
  
  So Obama was lying when he said that the deal “prevented a middle class tax hike”? Or are you part of the “wealthiest 2%”?
  
  …I don’t feel the need to whine about it and pretend I’m losing something of value in such grand terms.
  
  Well if I am not mistaken you supported this clown’s candidacy as well as his tax policies so I don’t imagine you are in much of a position to complain.
  
  I think using discrimination as a basis for judging people on tax policy is a real stretch.
  
  I don’t know quite what you mean by this, but I think people can be sensibly judged by the actions they take and the policies they support. People who support or advocate for laws that discriminate against their fellow citizens should be judged accordingly.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
lmsinca, on January 5, 2013 at 6:48 am said:

Scott

So then you think that it is OK for poor white people to discriminate against rich black people? I doubt it.

I don’t know where that came from based on what I said.

Or are you part of the “wealthiest 2%”?

Hardly, we both had to begin drawing our SS this past year we were so broke. I didn’t say our income taxes went up, but we’re still paying payroll taxes and the 0.7% of people whose lower rate expired on income from a temporary tax break aren’t the only ones who had a lower tax rate expire. I haven’t heard of peep from working class people complaining that their taxes went up.

this clown’s candidacy

Which clown should I have voted for?

People who support or advocate for laws that discriminate against their fellow citizens should be judged accordingly.

And yet you and other Republicans don’t want to be personally judged by your lack of support for Universal health care even though people die regularly from not being able to access the health care system. I’m saying you’re making it personal when it shouldn’t be.

I’ve worked really hard the past three years to not be judgmental toward people who don’t support some of the things I do and thought it was what separated myself and others who are trying to do the same from some of the worst offenders on the comment boards. And yet, you feel free apparently to accuse those of us who support a progressive tax system of discriminating against our fellow citizens on a par with racial discrimination. I think you’ve taken the “technical” meaning of discrimination too far.

I enjoy reading the various ideas of people here regarding tax policy and ways to make our system more fair, but I think you’ve gone too far in characterizing those who disagree with you as somehow despicable. That’s all I’m saying. Obviously, if that’s the way you feel you’re free to express it, I’m just not someone who will roll over on my back and accept the characterization.

LikeLike

Reply
- ScottC, on January 5, 2013 at 11:16 am said:
  
  lms:
  
  I don’t know where that came from based on what I said.
  
  How does a poor white person manage to “limit the opportunities” of a rich black person?
  
  Hardly
  
  Well then I guess Obama was lying. I wonder what else he’s been lying about, like maybe his intention to make meaningful spending cuts?
  
  Which clown should I have voted for?
  
  Romney.
  
  And yet you and other Republicans don’t want to be personally judged by your lack of support for Universal health care even though people die regularly from not being able to access the health care system.
  
  First, no one dies from lack of access to the health care system. They die from disease, injuries, or other health related problems.
  
  Second, I support “universal” health care if that means everyone is universally free from coercion to access health care that someone else is willing to offer them. What I am not in favor of is government run health care, where some people are forced to provide for the health care of other people, or where health care providers are forced to provide health care under terms dictated by the government.
  
  Third, I am more than happy to be judged on my advocacy of freedom with regard to the health care system.
  
  And yet, you feel free apparently to accuse those of us who support a progressive tax system of discriminating against our fellow citizens on a par with racial discrimination…
  
  This seems to imply that you at least acknowledge the nature of a progressive tax as being discriminatory, even if you don not think it is “on par” with other instances of government discrimination. If so, then we at least have a foundation of agreement from which we can proceed.
  
  I think you’ve taken the “technical” meaning of discrimination too far.
  
  What distinguishes merely “technical” discrimination from what you think is more substantive, actual discrimination? I’ve asked several times for someone to point out the morally relevant distinction between the government discriminating on the basis of income and on the basis of other characteristics like skin color, and no one seems to be willing/able to do so. I’m getting the sense that the only real difference is simply a matter of preference…some people just like the former and don’t like the latter.
  
  but I think you’ve gone too far in characterizing those who disagree with you as somehow despicable.
  
  I don’t believe I have characterized anyone as despicable, although there are several people in government who I am willing to characterize as such.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
lmsinca, on January 5, 2013 at 6:53 am said:

I’m personally more concerned with why and how, depending on who’s doing the analyzing of the numbers, somewhere between 78B and 200B in corporate tax extenders found their way into the bill. It looks like the WH insisted on these.

The “fiscal cliff” legislation passed this week included $76 billion in special-interest tax credits for the likes of General Electric, Hollywood and even Captain Morgan. But these subsidies weren’t the fruit of eleventh-hour lobbying conducted on the cliff’s edge — they were crafted back in August in a Senate committee, and they sat dormant until the White House reportedly insisted on them this week.

The Family and Business Tax Cut Certainty Act of 2012, which passed through the Senate Finance Committee in August, was copied and pasted into the fiscal cliff legislation, yielding a victory for biotech companies, wind-turbine-makers, biodiesel producers, film studios — and their lobbyists. So, if you’re wondering how algae subsidies became part of a must-pass package to avert the dreaded fiscal cliff, credit the Biotechnology Industry Organization’s lobbying last summer.

General Electric and Citigroup, for instance, hired Breaux and Lott to extend a tax provision that allows multinational corporations to defer U.S. taxes by moving profits into offshore financial subsidiaries. This provision — known as the “active financing exception” — is the main tool GE uses to avoid nearly all U.S. corporate income tax.

Liquor giant Diageo also retained Breaux and Lott to win extensions on two provisions benefiting rum-making in Puerto Rico.

The K Street firm Capitol Tax Partners, led by Treasury Department alumni from the Clinton administration, represented an even more impressive list of tax clients, who paid CTP more than $1.68 million in the third quarter.

Besides financial clients like Citi, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, CTP represented green energy companies like GE and the American Wind Energy Association. These companies won extension and expansion of the production tax credit for wind energy.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/tim-carney-how-corporate-tax-credits-got-in-the-cliff-deal/article/2517397?custom_click=rss#.UOgvO4Htq9t

LikeLike

Reply
Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on January 5, 2013 at 9:47 am said:

” It looks like the WH insisted on these.”

People still laugh at Sarah Palin for talking about crony capitalism. Thank God she didn’t run, dodged a bullet there.

LikeLike

Reply
lmsinca, on January 5, 2013 at 10:23 am said:

I didn’t laugh at SP for talking about crony capitalism, it was the “one” thing she got right. It’s one of the most pernicious aspects of money in politics and let’s not pretend the Obama Administration is the only one engaging, they just happen to be the ones in power right now. AFAIC raising taxes to pre Bush tax levels is downright reasonable compared to some of the other crap going on behind closed doors.

LikeLike

Reply
- ScottC, on January 5, 2013 at 11:29 am said:
  
  lms:
  
  It’s one of the most pernicious aspects of money in politics…
  
  More likely vice-versa. The bigger the desire/willingness of politicians to tell businesses what the can and cannot do, the more businesses will use government to gain an advantage over others. If you want to get money out of politics, stop electing politicians who want to increasingly regulate business.
  
  AFAIC raising taxes to pre Bush tax levels is downright reasonable compared to some of the other crap going on behind closed doors.
  
  To paraphrase Mencken, those of you who want more government will get it, good and hard.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on January 5, 2013 at 10:31 am said:

Here’s a question, how much should the government spend?

LikeLike

Reply
lmsinca, on January 5, 2013 at 11:37 am said:

Uhhh, good and hard? Talk to y’all soon, I tried to make my points and now we’re off to see a movie. Have a nice weekend.

LikeLike

Reply
lmsinca, on January 5, 2013 at 6:11 pm said:

Anyone who hasn’t seen “Lincoln” yet, I highly recommend it. Unbelievable.

LikeLike

Reply
yellojkt, on January 6, 2013 at 5:51 am said:

I’ve been following this discussion quite closely and I find the idea that the wealthy are some sort of persecuted minority worthy of our sympathy completely ludicrous. Any analysis of our tax structure shows that the current net effective rates are hardly confiscatory or punitive. To equate wealth with other sources of prejudice and discrimination such as race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation is to trivialize with false equivalence serious social issues.

LikeLike

Reply
- ScottC, on January 6, 2013 at 8:25 am said:
  
  yello:
  
  I find the idea that the wealthy are some sort of persecuted minority worthy of our sympathy completely ludicrous.
  
  Whether anyone is “worthy” of your sympathy is up to you. But that the wealthy are a) a minority and b) discriminated against via the tax code is simply a fact.
  
  Any analysis of our tax structure shows that the current net effective rates are hardly confiscatory or punitive.
  
  The issue is whether they are discriminatory. They are. Obviously.
  
  To equate wealth with other sources of prejudice and discrimination such as race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation is to trivialize with false equivalence serious social issues.
  
  Quite the opposite. I agree that government discrimination based on race is a very serious issue (or would be if the government actually did it). The problem is that you wish to trivialize discrimination based on income, while I do not.
  
  Again, what is the morally relevant distinction between government discrimination against a person based on income and government discrimination against a person based on, say, his skin color?
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
yellojkt, on January 6, 2013 at 5:58 am said:

‘Lincoln’ is not a movie without its flaws but I really like the way they managed to fit in the various arguments about the ramifications of the opposing strategies being debated. In particular, the concerns of the post-war legality of the Emancipation Proclamation were very intriguing.

LikeLike

Reply
lmsinca, on January 6, 2013 at 6:54 am said:

the concerns of the post-war legality of the Emancipation Proclamation were very intriguing.

I appreciated that aspect of the movie as well yello. Primarily though, I was simply mesmerized by DD Lewis’ portrayal of Lincoln.

LikeLike

Reply
Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on January 6, 2013 at 8:55 am said:

” To equate wealth with other sources of prejudice and discrimination such as race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation is to trivialize with false equivalence serious social issues.”

And thus we are reduced to “because i said it’s different, that’s why.”

Let’s find out who else it’s ok to discriminate against. So far we have the wealthy and felons. Anybody else worthy of unequal treatment before the law?

This is a serious question.

LikeLike

Reply
- ScottC, on January 6, 2013 at 9:48 am said:
  
  McWing:
  
  And thus we are reduced to “because i said it’s different, that’s why.”
  
  That does seem to be the case, doesn’t it?
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
lmsinca, on January 6, 2013 at 10:08 am said:

Or because I said it’s the same, that’s why”

LikeLike

Reply
- ScottC, on January 6, 2013 at 10:50 am said:
  
  lms:
  
  Or because I said it’s the same, that’s why”
  
  Nope.
  
  One cannot prove a negative proposition, ie “There is no difference between X and Y.” I can point out the many ways in which X and Y are the same, but no matter how many similarities I point to, it is always possible that there is some difference I am not mentioning.
  
  However, one can prove a positive proposition, ie “There is a difference between X and Y”. Just point out an actual difference between X and Y. Quite simple, really, unless there is in fact no difference.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on January 6, 2013 at 10:30 am said:

Lms, I’m pretty sure Scott did not make an exact equivalance of racial discrimination to taxation discrimination. What he is pointing out however is that there is a progressive income tax system does discriminate. It is prejudiced against a group of Americans. It is impossible to deny that. Further, if it is not ok for the government to discriminate, then one has to be opposed to a progressive tax system.

I’ll ask again, what other group, besides felons and the wealthy is it ok for the government to discriminate?

LikeLike

Reply
Mike, on January 6, 2013 at 10:51 am said:

Let’s find out who else it’s ok to discriminate against. So far we have the wealthy and felons

If you are going to group the wealthy and felons as being similarly treated unequally by the law, then there are a myriad of groups that fall into that category, including (but not limited to):

the mentally ill
the military
the poor (who cannot afford bail)
wage earners (payroll tax)
drivers (DLs/insurance/registration)
gun purchasers (background checks, etc.)
any profession that requires licensure (doctors, contractors, etc.)
renters (“reverse” discrimination by mortgage interest deduction)

LikeLike

Reply
- ScottC, on January 6, 2013 at 11:21 am said:
  
  Mike:
  
  Perhaps you could expand on the mentally ill and the military. With regard to the others:
  
  the poor (who cannot afford bail)
  
  I don’t see how this represents discrimination. Anyone, rich or poor, can get out on bail if the bail is posted. There is no income or wealth test.
  
  wage earners (payroll tax)
  
  Agreed. This is one reason there should be no payroll tax.
  
  drivers (DLs/insurance/registration)
  
  These are state, not federal, laws I believe.
  
  gun purchasers (background checks, etc.)
  
  Actually I think requiring background checks represents discrimination against gun sellers, not purchasers.
  
  any profession that requires licensure (doctors, contractors, etc.)
  
  Agreed. This is a form of discrimination (in addition to driving up the cost of the services provided by those in such professions).
  
  renters (“reverse” discrimination by mortgage interest deduction)
  
  Actually pretty much all of the deductions and exemptions for this or that characteristic are discriminatory. The tax code is a plethora of government discrimination. Such discrimination is necessary when one wants to use the tax code for things other than simply raising revenue.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  - markinaustin, on January 6, 2013 at 12:07 pm said:
    
    Anyone, rich or poor, can get out on bail if the bail is posted.
    
    That is a wealth test.
    
    Scott and George, the difference and the distinction is the original one Mike posed: mutable vs.immutable differences. When I was a teenager, and when I was a kid on the farm, and when I was a short order cook or a wireman apprentice in college, and when I was a legislative assistant in law school I paid little if any income tax. The year taxes went from 36% to 39.6% cost me an additional $40K in tax. I was the same person. I got treated like every other person who made the same income I did at all times. No one said I always had to be a short order cook because of my race, religion, or national origin. My income was a mutable characteristic and I could choose to make more or less within a certain range. I had those choices largely thanks to public education and my favorite charity is the University of Texas Law School Foundation. I wish everyone could get into the 39.6% bracket.
    
    As for Keynes in the real world, in the 40s and 50s it was possible to measure the effects of countercyclicals like unemployment compensation. So when I majored in economics as an undergraduate, there was an understanding that to a measurable point Keynes and Friedman were both right. Thus the 1958 Recession was dampened and shortened by the countercyclicals and by interest and money supply manipulation and that could be demonstrated. The effect is much harder to measure – perhaps cannot be measured – when the deficits are permanent and big. I think many conservative economists believe in the basic countercyclicals, but not in Krugman’s ideas of shotgun spending. It was obvious in 1960 that spending from the govt. to the poor had a multiplier effect but today unless the spending were rifled and localized, as for road or port building, the money would circulate to Singapore, India, VN, China. Keynes would probably recognize this even if Krugman doesn’t. We are obviously living on the edge now, having long ago got the benefit of both Keynes and Friedman at much lower $ levels. We continue to get away with this b/c everyone in the world still trusts the $.
    
    Geanie – industrial non-ag states are donors, ag non-industrial states are donees. States with huge federal lands and forests are donees. The states bordering DC that house the fed bureaucracy, VA and MD, are big donees.
    
    Our two biggest population centers, CA and TX, are net donors, but because they are both industrial and ag giants they are not as big proportionately as DE and NJ. AK and NM are geographically fed reservations and are big donees. As long as we have huge Ag subsidies, purely Ag states like MS will be big donees. Our third biggest pop center, FL, is a small net donor but it is also a special case. Its huge retiree pop and ag production are offset by big seaports and worldwide influx of resort and leisure money. Only about 15 states are typically net donors and 35 are typically net donees. Add in DC as a big net donee, of course.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
    - ScottC, on January 6, 2013 at 1:46 pm said:
      
      mark:
      
      That is a wealth test.
      
      No it isn’t. People can and do borrow money to post bail. The government doesn’t care where the money comes from, whether it is owned by the person posting bail or not. The person can have no money at all, but if bail gets posted (by a family member, a friend, a bail bondsman, a stranger), he gets out. It is not a wealth test.
      
      the difference and the distinction is the original one Mike posed: mutable vs.immutable differences.
      
      Membership in a union is a mutable difference. If the federal government required that all union members pay 2% more of their income in income taxes relative to non-union members of the same income, would you find that objectionable? No one said they had to be members of a union.
      
      Religious affiliation is a mutable characteristic. If the federal government required that members of different religious affiliations pay differing percentages of their income as taxes, would you find that objectionable? No one said they had to be members of that religion.
      
      Occupation is a mutable characteristic. If the federal government required that all practicing lawyers pay 2% more of their income in income taxes than members of other professions, would you find that objectionable? No one said they had to be lawyers.
      
      I would find all of these objectionable government discrimination, and so I do not find the mutable/immutable explanation to be a convincing one at all.
      
      LikeLike
    - markinaustin, on January 6, 2013 at 2:01 pm said:
      
      It is obviously a wealth test and I do not understand how you cannot see that. If you have no source of funds you stay in jail.
      
      As for your examples, they are all of persons being disadvantaged by the govt. for their affiliations. No one is disadvantaged by making more money within the current parameters.
      
      LikeLike
    - ScottC, on January 6, 2013 at 2:14 pm said:
      
      mark:
      
      If you have no source of funds you stay in jail.
      
      The funds do not have to be one’s own funds. Call it a “source of funds” test, but it is not a wealth test.
      
      As for your examples, they are all of persons being disadvantaged by the govt. for their affiliations.
      
      And a progressive tax disadvantages a person for their income level. Consider:
      
      All citizens will be required to pay 10% of their income to the federal government in taxes. But citizens who are members of group X will be required to pay an additional 2% of their income to the federal government.
      
      Question: Is group X being disadvantaged relative to non-members by this requirement?
      
      LikeLike
    - markinaustin, on January 6, 2013 at 2:19 pm said:
      
      Question: Is group X being disadvantaged relative to non-members by this requirement?
      
      not if the requirement is at the upper margin. All people with similar income pay similar taxes.
      
      People who make more money keep more money.
      
      We understand where we differ.
      
      Its almost time for RGIII now.
      
      LikeLike
    - ScottC, on January 6, 2013 at 3:26 pm said:
      
      mark:
      
      People who make more money keep more money.
      
      Your notion of what constitutes a disadvantage is a strange one. Consider:
      
      Person X works as a plumber. He works 60 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, works holidays, never takes a vacation, and manages to make $200k a year.
      
      Person Y works as a plumber too. He works 35 hours a week, takes 5 weeks of vacation each year, never takes emergency calls on holidays, and manages to pull in $60K a year.
      
      According to your thinking, as long as the government leaves person X with just $1 more after tax than it leaves person Y after tax (people who make more money keep more money, right?), the government is not disadvantaging X relative to Y. That strikes me as absurd. Clearly the government is disadvantaging X with regard to his effort and earning power relative to Y.
      
      LikeLike
    - markinaustin, on January 6, 2013 at 4:29 pm said:
      
      As I wrote at 2:01 pm: No one is disadvantaged by making more money within the current parameters.
      
      A marginal tax could be so onerous that a person would decide that her leisure was worth more or that he could do the same work in MX or CA and keep more disposable income. It was that onerous when I was in HS, during the Ike years. I knew an arc welder who took all of December 1959 off rather than work for so little net income for the month.
      
      Within the current parameters, Scott.
      
      LikeLike
    - ScottC, on January 6, 2013 at 5:48 pm said:
      
      mark:
      
      A marginal tax could be so onerous that a person would decide that her leisure was worth more or that he could do the same work in MX or CA and keep more disposable income.
      
      Marginal tax rates alter behavior even at relatively low rates, and I wouldn’t call a 40% tax rate low. Some people make the decision that leisure is worth more even within the current parameters, but I know that you claim current parameters are not “too onerous”. So it seems a tax becomes too onerous only when you decides it is. I guess we are back to what I will call McWing’s law: Because I say so, that’s why.
      
      Besides which, the question before us is not whether the tax is onerous or how onerous it is, but rather does it disadvantage X. I don’t see how you can deny that it does. Whether X is “allowed” to retain 1 dollar or $50,000 more than Y post taxation, the fact is that if X is paying a higher effective tax rate than Y, then the government is taking more from X relative to his efforts and value produced than from Y, and that is clearly to X’s disadvantage. The fact that X ultimately works harder, produces more value, and is therefore left with more than Y despite the government disadvantaging him does not alter the fact of the disadvantage.
      
      LikeLike
    - markinaustin, on January 6, 2013 at 6:01 pm said:
      
      So it seems a tax becomes too onerous only when you decides it is
      
      or when you decide it disadvantages someone, apparently. There are objective measures of these effects somewhere and I would accept a consensus of them, but I suspect you would not because it is you who have defined for all of us your sense of morality wrt taxation, and that studies of personal decision making and economic effects are meaningless and irrelevant to you, considering that you equate the morality of marginal tax rates to the morality of segregation.
      
      This is pointless.
      
      LikeLike
    - ScottC, on January 6, 2013 at 7:21 pm said:
      
      mark:
      
      or when you decide it disadvantages someone, apparently.
      
      No. I haven’t made any claims about when a tax becomes “onerous”. That’s primarily a subjective determination involving individual circumstances. I have been talking largely about whether progressive taxation discriminates against certain people (it does, by design), and whether such discrimination represents a disadvantage to its victims. To you, whether or not the disadvantage rises to the level of “onerous” seems to be important. To me it is not.
      
      There are objective measures of these effects somewhere and I would accept a consensus of them
      
      There are certainly objective measures of the economic effects of taxation, but I don’t know how one could objectively measure the “onerousness” of a tax.
      
      and that studies of personal decision making and economic effects are meaningless and irrelevant to you
      
      Yes, they are irrelevant to me with regard to government discrimination. I don’t think the government should discriminate against people even if it has positive economic effects, much less if the negative effects are just minimal.
      
      LikeLike
lmsinca, on January 6, 2013 at 11:05 am said:

McWing if he doesn’t think it’s the same then he shouldn’t ask questions like this.

Again, what is the morally relevant distinction between government discrimination against a person based on income and government discrimination against a person based on, say, his skin color?

He clearly doesn’t think there is any moral distinction between the two. And the government has allowed discrimination against many people and continues to, such as women, immigrants, gays and lesbians and one could speculate that considering the preferred status of banks against criminal prosecution they are discriminating against the rest of us by not giving us the same opportunities to evade prosecution for financial crimes.

I think it’s a rather elitist proposition that because the marginal tax rate on 0.7% of the population went up slightly by reverting rates to a pre Bush Tax Cut level, that is in no way confiscatory or limits their boundless opportunities, we are asked to believe the discussion should center around discrimination. If you don’t think it’s fair just say so. I agree with the premise that the government uses coercion but I resent the idea that, as a person who supports a progressive tax system I, and others like me, are somehow practicing discrimination with no moral relevant distinction from “discrimination against a person based on, say, his skin color.

I won’t change my opinion on this no matter how many different ways you ask the question.

LikeLike

Reply
- ScottC, on January 6, 2013 at 11:35 am said:
  
  lms:
  
  McWing if he doesn’t think it’s the same then he shouldn’t ask questions like this.
  
  If you don’t think it’s the same, then you should be able to answer questions like that.
  
  And the government has allowed discrimination against many people
  
  The subject is not whether the government allows discrimination, but rather whether the government engages in discrimination, and whether or not it should.
  
  I agree with the premise that the government uses coercion but I resent the idea that, as a person who supports a progressive tax system I, and others like me, are somehow practicing discrimination with no moral relevant distinction from “discrimination against a person based on, say, his skin color.
  
  Your resentment is no reason to think the proposition isn’t true. Pointing out a relevant distinction might be a reason to think it isn’t true, but I have yet to see anyone willing/able to do so.
  
  I won’t change my opinion on this no matter how many different ways you ask the question.
  
  Or, it seems, even if you can’t identify a relevant difference.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on January 6, 2013 at 11:13 am said:

Mike, other than the mentally ill, all the rest are voluntary, in that one does not have to engage in the particular activity. For example, we have an all volunteer military. However, those in the military are treated equally under the UCMJ, but unequally depending oh how much income they earn. The important distiinction about bail is that it is available to all equally, ie, that each person, regardless of income, is eligible for bail equally, paying for it is not, nor should it be a Federal issue. The payroll tax is applied to all wage earners equally, further, one does not have to earn a wage, it is entirely voluntary. Drivers are treated equally under the law, where is the Federal (or state) discrimination? All gun purchasers are subject to a background check. Don’t want a background check, don’t buy a gun, how is that Federal discrimination? Again, Licencing, at least on a Federal level is entirely voluntary, no? And renter’d do not have to rent, ergo, not Federal discrimination.

So far, we’ve added one group that it is ok for the Federal government to discriminate against, the mentally ill. That makes three. Any others we’re cool with using the force of law to discriminate against?

LikeLike

Reply
- ScottC, on January 6, 2013 at 11:53 am said:
  
  McWing:
  
  The payroll tax is applied to all wage earners equally, further, one does not have to earn a wage, it is entirely voluntary.
  
  Well, on this basis you could also argue that one doesn’t have to earn more than $400k, so therefore the progressive tax is not discriminatory. I think the payroll tax is discriminatory because it applies only to money earned in a certain way. The owner of a small business who pockets the profit from his business doesn’t pay any payroll tax, but if he pays himself a salary, suddenly he does owe payroll tax. That is discrimination against wage earners in pretty much the same way the top tax rate discriminates against someone who makes more than $400k.
  
  But the payroll tax is different in that it is (ostensibly) being paid in return for a defined and individual benefit that is itself a function of the amount paid. So it is more like a fee for a service than a tax. So the real discriminatory behavior is that the government is forcing some people (wage earners) to participate in the whole SS/medicare scheme, while it does not force others to participate. The discrimination has nothing to do with the rate they pay.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
lmsinca, on January 6, 2013 at 11:33 am said:

“somehow practicing discrimination” should say “supporting discrimination”

Enjoy your Sunday everyone.

LikeLike

Reply
lmsinca, on January 6, 2013 at 11:54 am said:

Scott

I pointed out several posts ago the distinction in denial of opportunity which you seem to have ignored. As you said yourself in your recent post As one’s individual income grows, the amount one spends on essential goods like housing and food, relative to total income, tends to shrink, while the amount one spends on more non-essential goods and services grows., it doesn’t appear as though anyone is denying them the opportunity to purchase essentials and so you’d have to identify for me which non-essentials are so important as to be ranked up there with the discriminated against persons so many of us have mentioned, including those based on skin color, gender, sexual orientation, disabilities, immigrant status etc. including those of us not participating in the corporate welfare state.

Now I really am out.

LikeLike

Reply
- ScottC, on January 6, 2013 at 12:53 pm said:
  
  lms:
  
  I pointed out several posts ago the distinction in denial of opportunity which you seem to have ignored.
  
  The progressive tax denies to those subject to the highest rates the opportunity to utilize a certain percentage of their income that it does not deny to those not subject to the highest rates.
  
  You might argue that certain particular instances of government discrimination are more or less objectionable relative to other instances of government discrimination. For example, a law that forces blacks to the back of the bus is less pernicious than a law that prevents black from riding the bus altogether. But they both are pernicious because of their nature as government discrimination. So too the desire to force some people to pay a higher percentage of income tax than others.
  
  My sense is that many of you justify engaging in this discrimination by convincing yourselves that the effect on the victims is negligible. First of all, you don’t really know that since you don’t know the individual circumstances of your victims, and second of all, it doesn’t really matter…it is still wrong in principle.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on January 6, 2013 at 11:59 am said:

You’re right about wage earners Scott, I realized it as soon as I submitted the comment.

“But the payroll tax is different in that it is (ostensibly) being paid in return for a defined and individual benefit that is itself a function of the amount paid. “

That really isn’t true as the money deducted from your wages actually goes to pay current beneficiaries. Further, since Congress can and does change the benefit, it’s not really defined either. The payroll tax is simply a wealth transfer.

LikeLike

Reply
- ScottC, on January 6, 2013 at 12:59 pm said:
  
  McWing:
  
  That really isn’t true as the money deducted from your wages actually goes to pay current beneficiaries. Further, since Congress can and does change the benefit, it’s not really defined either. The payroll tax is simply a wealth transfer.
  
  Yes, in practice I largely agree. That is why I said “ostensibly”.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
Mike, on January 6, 2013 at 1:43 pm said:

Scott:

Perhaps you could expand on the mentally ill and the military

For the mentally ill, I was thinking specifically of involuntary commitment (violation of the 4th Amendment), but there are other things like not being allowed to own a gun (2nd Amendment) or vote in some states (Article IV, 14th, 15th, and 19th Amendments).

For the military, I was thinking about the restrictions on 1st, 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendment rights that our military accepts upon entering into service. Mark has addressed my point about the poor and bail.

LikeLike

Reply
Mike, on January 6, 2013 at 1:53 pm said:

Troll:

other than the mentally ill, all the rest are voluntary, in that one does not have to engage in the particular activity.

This is exactly my point about mutable versus immutable characteristics. One does not have to choose to be a felon or wealthy, but race or gender are impossible (or very difficult) to change. Discrimination on the basis of immutable characteristics are more insidious, and unacceptable, to me rather than those mutable characteristics like military service and employment, a point with which you seem to agree since those activities are voluntary.

LikeLike

Reply
- ScottC, on January 6, 2013 at 1:59 pm said:
  
  Mike:
  
  Discrimination on the basis of immutable characteristics are more insidious…(emphasis added)
  
  So does this mean you agree that discrimination on the basis of mutable characteristics is insidious, just not as insidious as that based on immutable characteristics?
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
yellojkt, on January 6, 2013 at 5:44 pm said:

I knew an arc welder who took all of December 1959 off rather than work for so little net income for the month.

That welding work was probably done by a different welder who either had not earned as much money or valued his leisure time less. In either case, an economic decision was made by all parties. There was no government coercion, just an assessment of the ramifications of free choices.

LikeLike

Reply
Mike, on January 7, 2013 at 6:54 am said:

Scott:

So does this mean you agree that discrimination on the basis of mutable characteristics is insidious, just not as insidious as that based on immutable characteristics?

Yes. Does that also mean that you agree that discrimination on the basis of mutable characteristics is not as insidious as that based on immutable characteristics? Because your example above appears to equate the two (income <$25K and race), and that is what I am disputing.

I will make one caveat. There is one mutable characteristic that our government has enshrined for the highest level of protection from discrimination, with which I'm mostly in agreement, and that is religion.

LikeLike

Reply
- ScottC, on January 7, 2013 at 9:38 am said:
  
  Mike:
  
  Yes.
  
  Excellent. So we do have a basis for agreement.
  
  Does that also mean that you agree that discrimination on the basis of mutable characteristics is not as insidious as that based on immutable characteristics?
  
  Not necessarily. I think we are especially sensitive to race discrimination because of the role it has played in our national history. But as a matter of principle, I think the nature of discrimination (sit at the back of the bus, pay more taxes, be enslaved) is more important than the basis on which the discrimination is applied.
  
  Because your example above appears to equate the two (income <$25K and race), and that is what I am disputing.
  
  If we agree that progressive taxation is discriminatory and therefore objectionable, then whatever differences we have with regard to how objectionable are relatively unimportant.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
Mike, on January 7, 2013 at 1:54 pm said:

Scott:

Not necessarily.

I guess we don’t agree then, if you cannot answer your own question in the affirmative.

as a matter of principle, I think the nature of discrimination (sit at the back of the bus, pay more taxes, be enslaved) is more important than the basis on which the discrimination is applied.

I disagree that the nature of the discrimination is more important than the basis.

whatever differences we have with regard to how objectionable are relatively unimportant

No, this is the basis for our disagreement. I think the degree of objectionableness of discriminatory practices is relatively important. My worldview is not as Manichean as yours; you seem to think that everything objectionable is equivalently objectionable. To me, there is a spectrum of objectionableness and different discriminatory practices have different levels of objectionableness. Having to get a driver’s license in order to operate an automobile is not nearly as objectionable as being forced to sit in the back of the bus because of my race. The first, I submit to willingly because: a) I want to drive a car on public roads; b) it ensures some level of competence among my fellow drivers; and c) the requirement is not onerous and serves a purpose. The other serves no real purpose and is based on something I have no control over; thus, that is much more objectionable to me and I would not submit to it willingly.

I think we have both made ourselves pretty clear to each other and that we have reached the point of diminishing returns. I don’t see that we will come to a mutual agreement, except to disagree. In terms of governmental discrimination, I accept SCOTUS’ suspect classification tests as a fair approximation of American “morality,” though I think these different levels of judicial scrutiny (and their application) are not ideal.

I will end by noting that I have accepted your definition of the word “discrimination” for the purposes of this discussion. That is not how I use “discrimination” in this context, which I generally reserve for prejudicial and disparate treatment/effect on the basis of immutable characteristics (and religion). I do not view licensure requirements for example as being particularly discriminative.

LikeLike

Reply
- ScottC, on January 7, 2013 at 2:50 pm said:
  
  Mike:
  
  you seem to think that everything objectionable is equivalently objectionable.
  
  Not at all. In an earlier response I was very explicit in agreeing that not all injustices are equally objectionable. (see the third section)
  
  Having to get a driver’s license in order to operate an automobile is not nearly as objectionable as being forced to sit in the back of the bus because of my race.
  
  I agree and in fact I don’t think having to get a license to drive on publicly owned roads is objectionable at all. If the government owns the roads, it has the right to dictate the terms of using it.
  
  But, for example, I would find it objectionable if the cost of getting a license from the government varied according to one’s income level. Or race.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply

Be kind, show respect, and all will be right with the world. Cancel reply

Moderately Recent Comments
Recent Posts
Calendar

January 2013

M T W T F S S

1 2 3 4 5 6

7 8 9 10 11 12 13

14 15 16 17 18 19 20

21 22 23 24 25 26 27

28 29 30 31

« Dec Feb »
Archives
- April 2026
- March 2026
- February 2026
- January 2026
- December 2025
- November 2025
- October 2025
- September 2025
- August 2025
- July 2025
- June 2025
- May 2025
- April 2025
- March 2025
- February 2025
- January 2025
- December 2024
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
Categories

Categories
Blog Stats
- 173,134 hits
Top Clicks
- None
Search in Moderation