Slashdot Mirror
A Minor Political Screed
AN ELECTION-SEASON EPISTLE ABOUT PYRAMIDS, DIAMONDS, INHERITANCE TAXES AND A CLOSE ELECTION THAT SOMEHOW HAS EVERYBODY BORED STIFF
Hello all. Here's hoping that autumn 2000 finds you well as we continue our transition into a new century.
Has anyone noticed something interesting? The complete lack of any voices proclaiming that December 31, 2000 is the _real turn of the century? Odd huh? I haven't heard a single call to celebrate this formal milestone -- even as a simple excuse to have another party! You'd expect at least for some Society of Nit-Pickers & Pedants to do so..
Anyway, whenever it's time to bid adieu to the Summer Olympics and prepare for Halloween, you can be sure that we in the USA are also approaching another bizarre ritual - our quadrennial presidential elections.
As usual, there is the politics you see on the surface... and what's going on below. Issues that get little play in the press. Issues that are really driving the deep agenda of one party or the other.
I've noticed one of these. And it bothers me enough to provoke spending an evening to pen this letter, offering a comment or two, in case some of you are interested.
SPOCK VERSUS DARTH?
Something strange is going on in the States (for those of you who live outside and cannot feel it in the air.) Times are good and that tends to seep some passion out of the political contest. Also, nobody is particularly scared of the choices being offered. Or excited, for that matter.
True, almost everyone agrees that Al Gore has about twice the IQ of George W Bush, more experience and a much better idea what's going on. Some call him "overqualified the same way Spock was, to be captain of the Enterprise, and therefore unromantic, a rather unpalatable choice for those preferring the zing of human fallibility in their leaders.
(See the latest issue of Yahoo Internet Life Magazine for a fascinating interview that seems to support this view.)
But for those who worry about George W's paucity of intellect, do not fret. By nominating Richard Cheney as his running mate, Bush quite properly signalled that he is front man for a brain trust that has considerable experience and knowledge about the workings of policy and government. As they did under Ronald Reagan, these gray eminences will handle most decisions with utter seriousness. They are not scary madmen or boat-rockers.
Government will function either way. To a large degree (at least compared to past empires) it will leave us pretty much alone. Those of us in the middle class, that is.
Then why am I writing now? Clearly I care, and wish to influence your vote, speaking openly, as one citizen to another.
THERE IS A DIFFERENCE
Well, for one thing, I utterly reject the silly platitude going around that says the republican and democratic parties are just the same. What hogwash!
On the left, some males swallow this romantic twaddle and go running off to Ralph Nader, seeing him as a Don Quixote-type, ignoring his programmatic vagueness, his oversimplifying demonization of markets and his many questionable personality traits. Very few women seem to have joined the Nader campaign. Maybe because they are more practical, knowing that the next president will appoint at least three Supreme Court justices. I've seen quite a few buttons saying "It's the Supreme Court, Stupid."
That issue, alone, should eliminate any thought of voting Republican this year.
But there is another, far more important reason. It has to do with a blatant attempt at social engineering that none of us should like or put up with. An effort to fundamentally alter a social contract that has done very well by America and the West for several generations.
A SOCIAL CONTRACT THAT WORKS
Look at the difference between European and American societies. Both have changed considerably since World War II by becoming much less pyramidal and more "diamondlike".
Some of you may have heard me talk about this before. It's an obvious metaphor for our unique culture. Throughout history, almost every civilization had a social structure shaped like a pyramid, with a few at the top lording it over uneducated masses below. And it was in the best interest of those on top to make sure those masses stayed down. Social position was inherited. Above all, information flows were tightly controlled.
In sharp contrast, our contemporary social pattern is diamond-shaped. For the first time, the well off actually outnumber the poor, at least inside our national borders. The educated outnumber the uneducated, and those who see themselves as somewhat empowered make up a majority. For the first time, most people merely envy the rich and do not hate them, because each of us can daydream taking our own turn in the pointy upper half. And if not us, then perhaps our children. It's called "social mobility" and it never happened before - at least not on this scale.
Above all, we feel that society's elites are somewhat accountable - or at least they are limited in the degree that they can use their elevated position to wreak capricious and direct harm on us, unlike the impunity that cloaked aristocracies in pyramidal cultures of the past.
(Harm done to the earth is another matter, we can discuss elsewhere.)
People who rage at "government bureaucrats" seldom stop to think how little those bureaucrats can actually do to harm you, compared to the impulsive power-abuses of aristocrats and oligarchs in nearly every past culture. And not too long ago! Forget Caesar and Louis XIV. Read Dickens, Jane Austin, Faulkner, Steinbeck! Hell, look at Myanmar and China today. It's like peering into a strange and desperately lopsided world -- the world that all our ancestors toiled in, friends. We are the ones living in an anomaly. The social engineering that occurred since WWII -- through marvels like the GI Bill, the explosion of literacy and expanded state universities, etc. -- caused a peaceful revolution in human affairs that was unprecedented across all time. And unlike other revolutions, it happened without much violence or bitterness. This revolution benefited those below without tearing down those above. We ought to appreciate such a marvel; it's incomplete, by a large margin, but it's also quite unprecedented. Our diamond-shaped social structure, with its implication that any of us may succeed next year, promotes a vibrant, can-do spirit that makes vigorous use of tools like mutual criticism and accountability. And note this symptom of health -- America has seen a burgeoning in the number of millionaires, but the vast majority of them made their own fortunes in the marketplace, through competitive delivery of goods and services.
Hey, that's what capitalism is supposed to be for, right? We can (and should) argue all day about how to help the poor. But at least their brightest sons and daughters already have a much better chance than the peasant kids did in the past. Every year, some of the best (or luckiest) make it all the way to the top. And countless sons of the rich find themselves having to earn it all over again.
*=> In Europe, by contrast, a majority of millionaires inherit their riches. Studies show that few of them seek to learn useful occupations or do anything dynamic with their fortunes. They do work hard at politics, striving to keep property and inheritance taxes low, while sticking the poor with high sales taxes. This way, they will be able to pass on their money, titles and life-style as entitlements to their lordly kids without impediment or inconvenience.
A DIAMOND UNDER SIEGE
Don't get me wrong! I have every intention of getting into the upper brackets myself. I've already made some progress in that direction. And I plan to be sure that my children get some advantages from my success. But that's a far cry from entitling them to billions from goods and services they never did a thing to produce or provide to anyone. My success does not entitle them to a position in life that safeguards them from competition.
I lived in the U.K. when Margaret Thatcher succeeded in ramming through a bill ending all property taxes. The chief beneficiaries were 1,000 landed families who no longer had to worry about actually earning some money to keep their grand estates. The chief effect? An increase in the VAT paid by normal folks... oh, and many castles and manor houses stopped having open house days, since they no longer had to earn tourist dollars to pay the rates! Oh boy, now the art collections could go back to being "for our eyes only!"
Here in the States you see the same movement at work. Lots of "Simple Tax Plans" take advantage of citizens' (justified!) anger at tax code complexity, pandering to that anger by pushing a National Sales Tax, with the chief effect of shifting the burden of taxation from the top of the diamond to the bottom. And the underlying agenda of turning that diamond into a pyramid once again.
(An aside: I am working with a group developing ways to simplify the income tax code using a computer program that will find politically neutral simplifications, taking the whole issue out of politics. It's an exciting project, requiring fascinating algorithms, but more than we can get into here.)
*=> Now comes along George W. Bush with his grand plan to "cut taxes" in a manner that blatantly gives fully half of the benefits to the richest 1%. Delaying the payoff of our grandchildren's public debt for a decade, he'll use most of the budget surplus to achieve such wonders as completely repealing the inheritance tax.
WHAT THE INHERITANCE TAX DOES
Now there's a funny thing about the inheritance tax - it's effects are vastly greater than they seem at first sight. At the surface, it doesn't look like the government's biggest source of revenue. In fact, its chief effect over the years has been encouraging super-rich folks to create charitable foundations, in order to keep their money away from the IRS!
Get this -- in the USA, charitable giving by the rich is MORE THAN TEN TIMES as high as it is in Europe! Studies credit most of this difference to the inheritance tax, spurring the wealthy to use their money to buy fame and gratitude, rather than let Uncle Sam decide how it will be spent.
Yes it's kind of quirky and ironic. But there's a kind of beauty to it, leaving the super-rich free to choose WHICH charitable use their money will go to. That's a lot of pleasure and power to have while doing a lot of good. And the pleasure goes to the people who got rich by actually providing goods and services, not their spoiled kids. (Andrew Carnegie set aside a nice little fund to ensure his kids' comfort, then dedicated the bulk of his fortune to giving libraries to the poor, all over the world. He said -- "I'd rather leave my son a curse than the almighty dollar.")
Care to guess what'll happen to charitable giving if GWB gets his way?
We are entering a period when some estimate that fifteen trillion dollars will shift hands between generations. For those in the middle class, this may be the only sizable dollop of cash they'll ever see, since most of their current savings are tied up in their homes... and the Inheritance tax won't touch a penny of it. But about a third of that fifteen trillion dollars is set to flow to a few thousand people who never produced a thing to earn it. Fortunately a large portion will also go into charitable foundations, taking on a myriad bold tasks that simply don't appear on the radar screens of either government or corporate planners. Fascinating projects, chosen by real innovators. That is, if things stay the way they are.
THAT is why the effort to revoke the Inheritance Tax is so frantic and urgent right now. It is why the bosses of the GOP have made it their number one priority. A trillion or two, taken away from bold foundations and slipped into the pockets of new lords. What a cool agenda!
FAMILY BUSINESSES? BALONEY
Oh, don't talk to me about "family businesses & family farms". That's been debunked, big time. The effect of the inheritance tax on small and mid-sized family business is virtually nil today. Nil. Moreover, Clinton & Gore have shown willingness to push upward the exemption from a million dollars to two million. Hell, make it five! TEN! That's a heap of equity to pass on. The kids should be able to do a lot with it, even if they must reconsolidate a bit
That's still a far cry from letting a small cadre of lazy preppies scoop in billions without paying a penny of it to the nation that protects them, pays for the research, protects them, educates their workers, protects them, keeps the poor from rioting, protects them, maintains labor peace, protects them, enforces contracts, protects them, invests in saving the environment we all share and then protects the rich some more, in ten thousand more ways than they would ever willingly acknowledge.
It's ungrateful, churlish and just plain nuts.
No, I am not preaching class warfare... though that is exactly what you will get eventually, if the pyramid is restored.
A lot of people are upset because the fraction of our economy controlled by the top 5% is rising, higher and more rapidly than at any time in 3 generations. I'm a bit less concerned by that, so long as the diamond remains healthy. So long as most of the millionaires in each generation still have to earn it and their kids still go to college with our kids. In that case they'll keep intermarrying with us, instead of thinking themselves a different species.
...which is exactly how the rich always thought of themselves in other cultures/times/places. As a different species, justifying their status with absurd racial notions or self-serving ideas about divine authority.
(SOME EXCEPTIONS)
(Okay, not all of the rich! Not today.
(It depends on which kind of wealth eggs you on -- RELATIVE wealth or ABSOLUTE wealth.
(Take those who want to be rich in order to have lots of fun and cool stuff. These folks don't compare themselves to those below them. They don't begrudge if others get rich too. In fact, the more the merrier! Let's all get so rich together that everybody vacations on terraformed Mars! Ski Olympus Mons! Ain't it awful how crowded Europa is getting these days?
(Others need to feel rich-er than the masses. It's the "er" suffix in richer that gives their life zest and meaning. The relative comparison to others. They would feel happier being in the top 1% of a poor society - with shabby servants to scream at - than being at the mere 90th percentile in a fabulously wealthy nation of equal citizens.
(I'll bet you know both types, admit it! This personality factor makes a big difference in which political movements each wealthy person donates money to, even if they buy similar cars and belong to the same clubs.)
WOULD-BE PYRAMID BUILDERS
People, it's time to say no-thanks to those wanting to bring back the old social pyramid. The diamond deserves our loyalty.
But alas, the diamond ain't stable, ladies and gents. The natural human tendency is for those with power to want more power.
I accept the productive value of capitalism, when the market is a vibrant place for fair competition of goods & services. But if accumulations of wealth pass a certain point, capitalism will die and feudalism will replace it, as happened every other time there was a brief renaissance of competitive opportunity in human affairs. Seriously, name a bright era when that did not happen, shutting down opportunities and progress for centuries at a stretch.
Anyone who wants the pyramid back is your political enemy, folks. Not just the enemy of us but an enemy of his own children. Just ask the innocent young baronets who lost their heads during the French Revolution. THEY didn't rape the serfs, but they paid a stiff price for their grandparents' arrogant, insatiable greed. Alas, those yearning for pyramids are too stupid to grasp how wealth is really made, or what happened to the pinnacle classes in every other culture, when the people below got fed up. They are too stupid to realize that the diamond is their own best friend.
OKAY, OKAY, OKAY....
Oooh, Brin is really starting to go over the top now!
Oh, all right.
Maybe the social diamond won't fall apart overnight if George W. Bush becomes president. Maybe he'll be balanced by a Democratic Congress. Maybe we'll be fine. There are lots of other factors involved than which figurehead occupies the White House.
Still, his blatant campaign to give a few trillion dollars to those who need it least bothers me deeply. Especially the raging avarice and ingratitude of it. People who have thrived immensely under the protection/support/subsidy of a great nation don't want to help pay to keep that nation prospering and growing, or to help poor kids rise up high enough to compete with them on an even playing field.
They want to be lords. OUR lords. And we shouldn't let them. Merely as rich as Croesus, that's all they should get to be. Getting to be rich as Scrooge McDuck should be enough for anybody.
Oh, pity their poor offspring, who must graduate from Andover or some other prep school knowing that now they have to go to university alongside the bright scions of accountants and teachers and laborers!
Oh no, they may actually feel a need to study something useful in school, in case their measly inheritance ever gets frittered away. Their mere ninety million dollars instead of tens of billions.
Worst of all, they have to suffer and watch as Dad's fortune goes to some prissy goody foundation to cure cancer, or to some university to buy buildings named after him and Mom.
"What an outrage! That money's MINE, you hear? Do you have any idea how little ninety million dollars can buy, these days?"
ENOUGH
This is the GOP's absolute top agenda item - they say so themselves - and we should reject it resoundingly. Send the Republicans back to the drawing board.
If Bill Clinton and Al Gore can see the light about welfare reform and budget balancing, then Dick Cheney can bloody well go back to the brain trust and report that the GOP needs some fresh ideas. And, please, some fresh blood while you're at it.
There are fresh ideas out there! * Ideas about how markets can be used to help stimulate and promote sustainable occupancy of the planet without putting all our faith in bureaucrats or the almighty dollar. Ideas about how markets can be made more vibrant than ever, spurring innovation while helping forge a diamond that floats ever higher, carrying everybody on Earth upward with it.
Go away this time, Dick. Give poor George W. a nice cushy job somewhere in the oil biz and bring us someone else in 2004. Somebody with brains... and proposals that make sense.
====================================================== ========================
NOTES:
* For those of you who are libertarians, see the next issue of LIBERTY magazine for an article about ideas like these. Ideas about freedom and "reduced government" that are worth campaigning for and that aren't about helping foster an old-fashioned inherited aristocracy in America. When you think about how many interesting things Cheney & co. could be talking about - like ending the Drug War - you'll wind up holding your nose and voting for Gore.
For those of you on the left who are actually thinking of voting Nader... gadzooks, do you know anything about that person? A gadfly needs personality traits that would be calamitous in a President. Learn more about him, for Gaia's sake. Then think about Global Warming, the Supreme Court and the Internet. You'll hold your nose and vote for Gore.
Me, I ain't holding nothing when I vote for him. He's a geek, but a smart/nice one. We've done worse. Most of the time, in fact. A lot worse.
The US is prosperous while Europe continues to plod along with a lame-duck currency. This isn't by accident - its a result of policy.
This whole peice is dedicated to the principal that Government is smarter than people are. "We are from the Government and we are going to help" is one of the most scary thoughts anyone could have.
Thomas Jefferson said, "People who give up freedom for security will get neither".
The problem is Government thinks that your money is their money. And since we are the government, your money is my money, and that my friend is called Socialism.
Our founding fathers knew that the only way to keep America free is to limit the Federal government, something this generation has not learned.
People who think they are superior to others, aren't.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Get real.
The biggest issue this year is "Who is government working for?". And until this question is answered, no other issue even makes sense to talk about. You can't decide how (or if) to fix social security or respond to terrorist attacks unless you know who your constituents are and what they believe.
THAT'S why I'm voting for Nader. Bush and, to a slightly lesser extent, Gore are both working for Big Business. Nader, Browne and Buchanan are all working for The People (or subsets thereof). Buchanan's subset is the religious right and therefore I'm not voting for him. Browne is working for people, but defines businesses as people--which I don't agree with and therefore I'm not voting for him.
Nader is the only candidate that recognizes that government belongs to people and businesses are NOT people. Therefore he gets my vote. But not because I want him to win. I want to use Nader's candidacy as a medium through which I can send my message: I want goverment to be of, by and for the people.
--
An abstained vote is a vote for Bush and Gore.
Non-meta-modded "Overrated" mods are killing Slashdot
(Hey Ryan! Here's your proof!)
It does not take much of a farm or small business these days to equal 1 million dollars, the new amount at which inheritance tax will kick in. I know that sounds like a lot, but experience with my family's farm showed us that it was not. When you add up land at thousands of dollars/acre, and the value of lots of heavy machinery and buildings, even a modest farm can be raped by these taxes.
End result? It gets sold to a huge agri-business concern, since the family cannot afford to give away 1/3 of all it owns (and has already paid taxes on) to the government and stay in business. And then people complain about corporations taking over our economy... Sheesh. Get a clue and look at the consequences of the policies advocated by the Democratic Party. Just because what they say sounds warm and fuzzy should we believe it?
It's the perfidy (stupid): Same lies, same sellout to, e.g. Russians selling nuclear stuff to Iran, or Russians pols and mobsters stealing the aid we send them, or sombody selling our nuke secrets to China. This is the biggest reason why, in a time of nearly unparalleled prosperity, the ruling party is losing. Charater does count: "loathing" the military traslates into some pinhead at Voice of America spiking a piece on the Cole bombing because those deaths do "not compare" to the Palestinian loss of life in the new Intifada.
Also, this Europhile thing is misplaced. Sure, I like blondes (and I am one), and SAABs, BMWs, and Mercedes are cool cars. IKEA makes cheap furniture that isn't ugly. But what about violent crime in gun-free London going out of control because you can be sure to be able to do a housebreak or a mugging without encountering a gun? What about ramapant mafias and endemic official corruption in southern and eastern Europe? What about the ever efficient and rational Germans going broke becuase their welfare state is unsustainable?
The real reason we are prosperous is that we have moderate taxes (that could be lower), pretty good rule of law (could be better), sanctity of contract (that is mostly enforceable), and private property (that could be better protected from bureaucrats). If we ever got freedom of choice in puclicly supported education, we would have a new Golden Age.
I wrote parts of this stuff
If you go to the academic record, they were both mediocre (at best) undergraduate students, with Bush having a slightly higher GPA while taking a slightly tougher courseload (including "Mr. Environment" Gore's 'D' in basic science). But Bush managed to earn a Havard MBA -- Gore dropped out of Vanderbilt twice in graduate programs, once in divinity (after he failed most of the courses he took in a program he got an early rotation home from Vietnam for) and once for law (I don't know what his grades were there -- he left to run for Congress).
Ok, so coursework isn't always the best example. But Gore's reputation for brilliance comes more from being very detailed as opposed to having original ideas. And seeing whom each candidate has surrounded himself with as advisors tend to make me think that Bush may really be the smarter one, especially in where it matters for a President. I personally prefer a delegator to a micro-manager. (Also true in business... but I digress...)
Of course, the real reasons to vote for someone are basic competence (I think either candidate is competent), trustworthyness (Bush beats Gore hands-down here), and issues (all depends on your own philosophy). There may be many reasons to vote for one candidate over the other, but please don't fall for the "Gore is brilliant and Bush is stupid" line as a factor in your decision.
--
The money in charitable foundations is not "tied up" at all, but is used, for example, to pay salaries to researchers, purchase equipment, rent buildings, and so on.
This is placing real, maximum-liquidity cash money directly into the economy - an even better thing as far as this student is concerned.
This sig left unintentionally blank.
Well, for one thing, I utterly reject the silly platitude going around that says the republican and democratic parties are just the same. What hogwash!
Thank you. Last time I brought this point up on slashdot, I was shot down by people who find it easier to group the parties together than actually follow the issues. And I have to agree about Ralph Nader; I'll probably be voting for him because my state seems a lock for Gore, so he doesn't need my vote, and I'd like the Green party to get matching funds. But I haven't been impressed by Nader as much as I would like to be, and if the race was close where I live I doubt I'd vote for him.
Me, I ain't holding nothing when I vote for him. He's a geek, but a smart/nice one. We've done worse. Most of the time, in fact. A lot worse.
It will be really interesting to see how a really intelligent president will handle things. Clinton's brilliant, but not in a geeky, policy-oriented way, and the last few presidents before him have ranged from moderately intelligent to downright dim. The other comment (besides the both parties being the same one) that always annoys me around election time is the charge that the President "shouldn't be too intelligent" because it will somehow limit their leadership ability. That's a particularly ridiculous claim, and one of the last vestiges of a thread of anti-intellectualism that's run through our country for too long. Gore was blasted for "talking down" to us during the debates; if you're going to avoid voting for someone because you don't like him to express his knowledge, then you deserve the President you get. Unfortunately, the rest of us don't, but we still get stuck with them.
--
This money, of course, disappears into the ether, never to seen by society again. What people do not, unfortunately, realize, is that morality has nothing to do with economics. When the son is "frittering away the wealth his father acquired," that is A Good Thing. Who is getting this wealth he "fritters away"? The poorer people he has to pay for products and services. Thus, more people are gainfully employed, rather than recipients of the largesse of a charitable foundation.
So, in response to your question, society benefits more from the first scenario.
If it ain't broke, you need more software.
This is impossible on its face. Every complication was put there to serve some political special interest; removing any of them is inherently a political decision.
More fundamentally, even the simplest replacement (e.g. zero taxes up to X income, then Y% of everything above that) requires a determination of X and Y based on a political decision between appeal to envy (set Y high to "soak the rich" and set X at upper-middle-class level to avoid hitting the bulk of voters) and appeal to fairness (set X at a lower-middle-class level to spread the load as widely as possible while protecting people who really can't afford to pay, set Y at the minimum necessary level to fund the government).
The natural human tendency is for those with power to want more power.
True. Too bad Brin doesn't apply this principle consistently, noting that the power of the people in government office increases with both the total amount of taxes levied and the amount of discretion applied in who shall be made to pay what amount.
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
Much as I love David Brin's novels, I find his political analysis to be shallow.
... the Al and Tipper were the inspiration for Love Story... that Al Gore discovered the Love Canal problem... that the greatest national security threat is the automobile (form Algore's book)...
He says he is not advocating class warfare, and then does exactly that. He objects that Bush's tax cut gives back a disproportionate amount of money to the top 1%, but seems to ignore the fact that those people are paying an even more disproportionate amount of taxes. Even Bush's tax plans make the tax system *more progressive* (and thus, in my opinion, more unfair to those who strive to achieve and be rewarded for it).
He decries social engineering, and yet supports a candidate who will use the tax code to do exactly that. Every time the tax code gets more complex ("targetted tax cuts") the government engages in more social engineering, more programming of our choices, and thus reduces our individual freedoms.
He also doesn't seem to realize that since the end of income averaging, the tax code taxes many more "rich" people who are just happen to get a bunch of their income in one lump sum, and thus hit a very high tax rate. For example, if you trade some of your salary for equity, then when you finally cash in on that equity, you will be "rich" as far as the tax code is concerned, even though you may end up with no more money than someone who took the money as salary and payed less taxes than you did. It has happened to me. And it happens to small business owners all the time.
He is willing to unfairly tax people twice in order to satsify his dubious social policy goal of preventing idle rich kids (not exactly a significant problem in the US, and not because of the tax code) and to encourage charitable giving. Folks, it ain't charity if government extortion forces you to do it. Furthermore, some of the greatest charitable foundations in the country were set up before we had those taxes! And, if you do the math, you will see that the tax hits hardest at those who are the children of the not-very-rich. If your parents have $100 million, and the tax takes $55 million, you can still be an *evil* idle millionaire if you want. But if they only have a couple of million, the tax makes a difference between a retirement cushion for you and not having one! David, you are a physicist... DO THE MATH (DTFM). Do you really believe that Bill Gates set up his foundation to avoid taxes? Carnegie? Ford? How much more money would go to charitable foundations if the government wasn't taking it from people and then redistributing it according to whatever buys the most votes?
And then there is the specious attack on W's IQ. OK - W wouldn't be the top guy at a geek convention, but neither would Algore. If you extrapolate their SAT tests to IQ (which, for verbal SATs is a very good extrapolation), there is only a slight difference, and both are almost two standard deviations above average.Furthermore, there is no evidence that high IQ is correlated with presidential success - just look at Nixon and Carter! Also, it is clear that Gore's "high IQ" has not blessed him with any degree of judgement when it comes to science - his environmental conclusions are not based on science or scientific reasoning, but rather radical romanticism. I'd rather take a solid guy who knows how to delegate over a genius who wlil pander, engage in class warfare, exagerrate his own achievements, make most his income from oil and tobacco while pretending to big their biggest enemies, and in general behave like a spoiled, power hungry rich kid.
And let us not forget who "owns" the democratic party... it is the teachers' unions (who bring us a public school system that consumes more money per pupil than almost any country in the world, and delivers far less educational results than every first world country and most second world countries)... it is the tort lawyers who use the billions of dollars that they got from the tobacco companies to attack the very capitalism that David naively thinks he supports... and who one of these days will get around to going after the software industry (after they destroy the pharmaceutical industry, the auto industry, the chemical industry, the firearms industry, etc)... it is the giant companies that prosper from *more* government regulation... and who use things like extreme environmental regulation to prevent small, less well capitalized companies from entering their field.
If you believe that the tax system should be used to control individual decisions... that the money really belongs to the government and they are just letting you use it... that the government should discriminate based on skin color or other artificial characteristics... that the problem with our schools is that we don't give them enough money or federal control... that Al Gore is a farmer... that Al Gore invented the internet
Sure... vote for Al.
And to those Libertarians out there...
Do you really want a government that believes IT can make the important decisions for you (taxes, who you can hire, what you can do with your land, etc, etc, etc)?
The only good weather is bad weather.
Damn right. If you take into account the dolts who control the major parties, I happily give my vote someone who actually maintains some integrity. Yeah, he may seems nuts sometimes, but the guy has done more for this country than either candidate ever has or will. And the fact that he refuses PAC/soft money, is a plus. It's sickening how every politician in Washington is a whore to special interests. It's time we take back our government. I wholeheartedly support the Green Party in its attempts to establish a credible third party that will, at least, keep the duopoly scared and always on its toes.
I hope everyone votes for Nader. He's the only sane one running for office today.
There's a reason GWB (disclaimer:yes, he's a moron) is proposing a tax cut for the wealthiest Americans - the top 10% is current paying at least 1/3 of all taxes, by even the most conservative estimate.
That same top 10% also holds more than 50% of all wealth in this country. By that standard, they should be paying 1/2 rather than 1/3 of all taxes.
That becomes especially true if taxation only affects (as it should) disposable income. It is quite unfair to tax the portion of income required to meet the minimum of food, clothing, and shelter. In the modern world, add in transportation and utilities since it is nearly impossable to be employed without those. Otherwise, taxes force inverted values in spending that would be seen as inexcusable at a personal level (A person who would buy fine art with the grocery money probably deserves to go hungry).
Separately, if the overall level of taxes is generating surpluses, that might be evidence for cutting taxes, and of course cutting them will result in the highest payers getting the biggest cuts, even though they will continue to be the highest payers, absolutely, relatively and proportionately. Supposedly smart Democrats are so dishonest on this point they should be disqualified from taking oaths of office. It's OK to want to soak the rich, but come out and say it.
I find Dr. Brin's arguments to be cogent and well thought-out. In fact, I agree with almost every conclusion he has made here, although I do disagree with some of his logic.
I'd like to further thank Dr. Brin and Hemos for a provocative and interesting commentary. ...and I'd like to urge all of the disaffected cynics out there to get off your duffs and vote in November. It might not seem like much, but it adds up....
And another liberal myth rears its ugly head! No, being rich doesn't allow you to hire accountants who keep you from getting taxed. The only way you avoid being taxed if you have a lot of income is to do exactly what the government wants with your money. That's what those accountant will tell you. Sure... put it in tax free bonds. But the payout on those bonds is much less as a result... so you are still paying the tax... just indirectly to the bond issuer!
The only large tax break I am aware of that is silly is real estate depreciation. The TEFRA act of 1986, with its passive loss deduction, removed that loophole from the rich - and coincidentally was the true cause of the S&L collapse.
It is a myth that the rich avoid paying taxes by using loopholes.
The only good weather is bad weather.
The richest 10% don't have to worry about whether they can afford to heat their homes this winter. They don't have to worry about getting their kids a basic college education. They don't have to choose between buying prescription drugs or food.
Maybe you've never known what it's like to be poor. I've had to sleep in unheated trailer homes; I've faced the choice between Ramen noodles or a doctor's visit. I clawed my way out of those hard times. But a lot of people are in those dire situations, and they need help. To pass them by so that Mr. Goldshorts can afford to buy his daughter another Lear jet strikes me as simply cruel.
One responsibility of the government is to help its citizens when they require it. And so yes, the richest Americans should pay most of the taxes, and no, they shouldn't get a tax break, because darnit, they don't need the help!
Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
Ah, how to refute this? Let me count the ways:
You strike me as someone with a strong grip on corporate marketing strategies. I suggest you avoid trying to translate those strategies to a national economy.
Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
Believe it.
All Bush can come up with in these unscripted encounters is touchy-feely "I hate washington, but I'm a uniter" vagueries.
Gore will explain in intricate detail what he plans to do. Specific bills, dollar amounts, motivations. Bush responds by saying, "That's great Mr. Gore, but I can actually do whatever it is I think I want done."
You're telling me that's trustworthy or competent? How can you trust Bush to do something he never said what he'd do, or how he'd overcome the "rancor and discord" in Washington. He has no standing! He has no actual will! I don't even think he's read his own tax plan. Gore, when discussing his plan, or Bush's for that matter, can tell you how it will apply to you. Bush, when asked last night about his tax plan, said it'd be great and started talking about NATIONAL DEFENSE and MEDICARE (which, by the way, are "big government entitlement programs," liberal stuff).
Tell me some more about how you trust the man, what exactly you trust him to do, and how he has earned your trust. Bush is the cleanest example of a puppet I have seen in my short life. He even looks like a muppet. He has made no substantive commitments to the populace, just vague suggestions. You'd better believe that he's going to be controlled by his advisors. Voting for Bush is electing the NRA and the Christian Coalition directly into office.
Gore, conversely, is his own man. He at least knows what he wants to do as president (SPECIFICALY), and how he plans to get it done. And he can tell you about it.
Me, I'm still voting for Nader. I have no doubts that either one will succumb to PAC money until campaign finance reform is a reality.
I don't need large brains to have a good time.
The wealthy have this neat trick of having the public bear costs while privatizing profits. This tradition was manifested in the European colonization of Africa and the sub-continent. For example, the Dutch East India Company used the publicly funded Dutch national army to protect it's "investments" (read economic pillage) in India. However, it kept all profits for itself.
One might argue the company generated wealth, but all it really did was shift wealth from India to the disproportionate benefit of Dutch elite. (And BTW, India had a thriving economy before the Europeans stepped in.)
This tradition is carried on today by the transnationals and wealthiest families. The wealthy benefit from our substantial distribution system, our university system, our R and D systems, and our security systems (including police, military, and intelligence). All these things combine to protect their wealth. Yes, we all benefit, but then we all contribute. The letter is suggesting, and rather convincingly IMHO, that those who benefit the most are trying to shirk their responsibility by socializing the costs of maintaining a civil, technological society.
After all, they've done it in the past.
Regarding the percentages issue, I'd like to point out that there's more to it than the hard numbers. We all have basic living expenses. Ie, there is a minimum we could possibly spend to keep nourished and sheltered. What's left over is disposable income. Taxes for the less wealthy therefore have more of an impact because they have less disposable income.
Like all mathematical modelling, percentages don't fully capture reality. 50% of $100 is more significant than 50% of $10000000000000000000. I mean, how many yachts do you really need? Ie, if all I have is $100 to spend, and you take half, getting that half back is significant in terms of my basic material comfort. To a middle-class family, a tax break could mean more sporting and academic activities or even something so basic as healthier food on the table.
Mathematically unfair? Who cares!
Now, one may use the 'garden path' argument and attempt to discredit my points by taking the extreme. So, let me take this opportunity to say that I do not support big government or big taxes. Let me also say that I can be in favour of a (truly) free market without being an economic rationalist.
--
They don't. The Constitution, read as written, would prevent all these things. Problem is, it would prevent Dr. Brin's "social engineering", too. If you believe that the US Federal Government is really responsible for the blossoming of the middle class in the 20th century, maybe it'd be best to take his advice, and hope we can influence the legislature to make amends.
For my own part, I can neither see that social engineering is compatible with freedom, or responsible for prosperity. And I sure as hell don't trust Congressfolk, Republican, Democrat, or otherwise.
I don't much trust businessfolk either... at least big businessfolk, like Gates and Ellison. But it seems to me that it's their influence over government that really poses the greatest threat. Again, limit the sorts of laws Congress can make.
For that matter, I don't really trust the rich. But if Gates and I can both get an X% tax cut, fine by me. Why? Because I don't compare myself to those above me. I don't spend my time worrying about their lordly children, or where they ski, as the author seems to do.
And please... don't tell me that we're "spending money" on anyone by not taking as much of their money. That's really obvious... I like my propaganda mild, with milk and sugar.
Geez, I've gone over my two minutes...
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton