Slashdot Mirror
Nonpartisan Tax Report Removed After Republican Protest
eldavojohn writes "On September 14th a report titled 'Taxes and the Economy: An Economic Analysis of the Top Tax Rates Since 1945' (PDF) penned by the Library of Congress' nonpartisan Congressional Research Service was released to little fanfare. However, the following conclusion of the report has since roiled the GOP enough to have the report removed from the Library of Congress: 'The results of the analysis suggest that changes over the past 65 years in the top marginal tax rate and the top capital gains tax rate do not appear correlated with economic growth. The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment, and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution. As measured by IRS data, the share of income accruing to the top 0.1% of U.S. families increased from 4.2% in 1945 to 12.3% by 2007 before falling to 9.2% due to the 2007-2009 recession. At the same time, the average tax rate paid by the top 0.1% fell from over 50% in 1945 to about 25% in 2009. Tax policy could have a relation to how the economic pie is sliced—lower top tax rates may be associated with greater income disparities.' From the New York Times article: 'The pressure applied to the research service comes amid a broader Republican effort to raise questions about research and statistics that were once trusted as nonpartisan and apolitical.' It appears to no longer be found on the Library of Congress' website."
Of course it was removed!
Non-partisan is just a politically correct way of saying, Lib'rul bias.
Now excuse me, I have to go back to watching Fox News.
It was removed, but did anyone manage to get a copy before that was done. It would be interesting to get an independent (in relative terms) review of the document.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
When you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
When you're a conservative nut-job, everything looks liberal.
Seriously, when are people going to learn about the Streisand Effect?
I would never have heard about this had they left it up. But now, it's gone from "boring tax report" to "the economic analysis that THEY don't want you to know about!".
have a well-known liberal bias.
Have you considered the possibility that you're somewhat to the right of Attila the Hun?
We don't like global wrming number so it did not happen.
We don't like your data on tax and economic so remove it.
We don't like your evolution thingy so it did not happen (yes technically I know there are some creationist on dem side but technically the crushing majority is on rep side).
If you are going to pull a stunt like this, you are supposed to wait until AFTER the elections!
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Facts don't match my ideology so FACTS MUST BE WRONG!!!
Really??
The Right seem to live in this strange world, where you can change reality by wishing hard enough, or lying hard enough, or by denying evidence and truth hard enough.
A bit like how Communists and their whacked-out theories about how reality could be changed by willing it so, e.g. the New Soviet Man.
And a bit like left-wing crazies in academic literary circles with postmodernism; where they deny objective reality, and consider science and reason to be something not to be trusted, because it's invented by powerful people to keep the little man down.
So what we're really seeing, is right-wing postmodernism; where the FOX crowd deny objective reality, because they see rationality, science and evidence-based-anything as a liberal left-wing plot to repress and hold down Galtian supermen such as themselves.
In a nutshell, the modern American Right is losing credibility, because enough of them are so split from reality, that they think that simply making shit up, denying the truth, and being stupid will bend the world to their will. Serious right-wing thinkers like William Buckley would have been appalled by the intellectual and moral rot.
It's tragic and bizarre, but nobody's laughing, because they're dangerous and get into power often enough to cause serious damage, like expensive and pointless wars, massive environmental damage, and yawning inequality.
I never understood that idea that giving a tax break to high salary people will stimulate the economy.
Usually the reasonning is that since they will have more money, they will consume more and that will help the economy. If you give a tax break to low income people for the same amount of tax dollars, they will use that money as well. They are not going to set it on fire, they will use it in a grocery store.
Am I understanding something wrong?
No really. I can't.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
There's some truth to that. The fact that I despise conservative crazies doesn't mean I don't despise liberal, libertarian or whig crazies just as much. Basically, I despise any party or organization to the extent that their views deviate from provable reality. Admittedly, right-wing republicans have taken over as the top of the reality denial list of late, but that doesn't mean that any other group is getting saner.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
Let's see how many people engage in honest discussion about why the report would be requested to be removed. With only 10 comments having been posted when I read this one, look how many align with his concern: http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3227495&cid=41859301
http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3227495&cid=41859311
http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3227495&cid=41859329
http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3227495&cid=41859353
http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3227495&cid=41859379
Take your meds Romney, the voices will go away.
Wealth disparity is actually more important than income indequality, as the extremely wealthy often earn a tiny fraction of income compared to their immense wealth, while the extremely poor have only their income to rely on.
Unfortunately, wealth inequality is rarely talked about in the mainstream media. Usually it's income that's talked about, and as horrible as income inequality is, focusing on it paints an unduly rosy picture of the real economic injustice suffered in the US.
If I give $1000 to a guy who is worth a billion dollars, he may just stick it in the vault and let it sit there.
If I give $1000 to someone who's living hand-to-mouth, it's going to get spent on food/drink/rent/clothes pretty much immediately.
What's the big deal? Everyone knows economics and history are lies straight from the pit of hell.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
There is plenty of data loose on the internet to allow anyone to draw the same conclusion.
Very interesting. Mod parent up.
Oddly, Attila the Hun was very liberal for his day, and could be considered liberal even today. Among the very progressive (for the times) things he enforced:
- It was fairly typical for him to take a city and then kill all of the political leadership, but not punish the populous. He then would let it be known that he knew who had commanded the opposition, and that the fight was now over with their disposal. Of course if anyone then tried to resume the fight he was incredibly brutal in retaliation. The idea of punishing the people responsible for war rather than the common man is something we still struggle with nowadays.
- Having been a near-slave himself early in life he abolished the idea of being born into slavery. The only people who were slaves were the people who were conquered.
- With the exception of the inherited emperorship (which was always going to go to whichever of his many children proved the most able), governmental positions were almost all by merit rather than political connection. This was virtually unheard of anywhere in the world at the time.
- Religious freedom was enforced all across the empire (because the largest in history it should be noted). In fact he seems to have enjoyed religious debate, and the most scholarly work comparing and contrasting religion of the time all came out of his capital where he brought diverse religious leaders together and invited them to debate before the court.
Most of this is from "Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World" (a great read): http://www.amazon.com/Genghis-Khan-Making-Modern-World/dp/0609809644
Other pieces from the traveling museum exhibit that it seems will next be in Chicago in Feb (I saw it in San Jose): http://fieldmuseum.org/about/genghis-khan-invades-chicago
The Soviet gangsters also practiced rewriting history and making inconvenient facts disappear.
They also valued Party connections over competence. Compare that to the people flown out to do Iraq reconstruction straight from college because they were in the Young Republicans.
Just my opinoin, but the 2000, 2008, 2012 elections have nothing on how crazy slashdot got in 2004.
The plan advocated by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan that is embodied in the House Budget Resolution (H.Con.Res. 112), the Path to Prosperity, also proposes to reduce income tax rates by broadening the tax base.
There is not conclusive evidence, however, to substantiate a clear relationship between the 65-year steady reduction in the top tax rates and economic growth. Analysis of such data suggests the reduction in the top tax rates have had little association with saving, investment, or productivity growth. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution. The share of income accruing to the top 0.1% of U.S. families increased from 4.2% in 1945 to 12.3% by 2007
Roughly interpreted: Ryan doesn't know what he's talking about, by extension neither does Romney. In fact, the only thing accomplished by reducing taxes on the rich is a money grab that increases the disparity between the 1% and the other 99%.
You know I really cannot understand why the Republicans would take issue with this report. I mean really, you'd think they'd like to know that their domestic policy is specious so that they can find real solutions. Unless, perhaps they already understood the reality of their talking point...
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
The starting year of 1945 was cherry-picked for having the highest top marginal rate in US history.
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
I withdraw the comparison. It was a snarky comment I heard many years ago. And it makes an even greater contrast to the current day.
Who would Attila have punished for the Iraq war? How many of the current political dynasties would have been cut off from any connection with the government? Can you imagine a set of broadcast national debates on religion today?
Interesting.
So now you want to tax wealth? Get the hell out of here. A graduated income tax is bad enough. But saying that because someone keeps their money that is somehow an injustice to those who spend it? Bill Gates having $40Billion in the bank is not a crime or an injustice against John Doe who makes $7 an hour flipping burgers and has to live with his parents. You are a poisoned mind. A fool. You want to know what would happen if you attacked that wealth? Eventually no one would be motivated to do the things that being to earn them such wealth. Progress would stop dead. You wouldn't have any of the cool stuff technologically that you have today. Sure there may be an occasional person who comes up with a brilliant idea that advances some sector of industry or whatever, but what you really end up with is a bunch of people who will only do what is need to just get by because that's as much recognition for their work as they get. Think people will play NFL football for $35,000 a year? Not in this lifetime. This is just the stupidest concept you could have possibly brought to an already silly topic.
...-based reasoning, reality will continue to take on an increasingly liberal tinge.
wealth is theft,
name a single billionaire who earned their billions through their own labor, rather than by exploiting the labor of others
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
Let me propose a radical idea to discuss: abolish the income tax and replace it by a tax on net assets. I'm not proposing any particular rate structure, but let me describe the general ideas.
Income tax has too many loopholes for the wealthy. For example, the Facebook and Google CEOs pay themselves $1 per year, avoiding any income tax and paying only the low capital gains rate when they occasionally sell some stock to finance their lifestyles. The rest grows tax-free, indefinitely, as their companies grow.
It seems to me that a fair tax would be based on a person's ability to pay it. The ability to afford a tax is much more dependent on how much wealth you have than how much income you make. Taxing the income of someone who can barely make ends meet, preventing them from accumulating any savings, doesn't seem beneficial for society overall.
It is much harder for a wealthy person to hide their assets than to exploit income tax loopholes. Of course there will always be loopholes, but most of the information regarding the ultra rich, for example, is even public, otherwise it would not be possible to compile the Fortune 400 list.
The middle class is already subject to an asset (real estate) tax on what, for most, is their primary asset, their home. So it's nothing new, and although those who pay it don't enjoy doing so of course, it's accepted and viewed as a necessary evil to finance their local community. The real estate tax is actually very regressive â" the less equity you have in your home, the higher percentage of that equity you pay, since it is based on the home's value, not your equity in it. You pay it even if your equity is negative (i.e. if the mortgage is underwater)! If both real estate tax and income tax were replaced by a net asset tax, it would seem to me to be much fairer.
One argument I've seen against an asset tax is that it would encourage people not to accumulate wealth i.e. would encourage stagnation. I disagree. A positive benefit of the real estate tax, for example, is that it discourages the accumulation of property sitting idle, but encourages the development and use of that property. Similarly, I would imagine a net worth tax would encourage productive use of the money, possibly even finally leading to that trickle-down job creation we hear so much about.
It's not stealing, you have a choice not to take part in this system. All taxes are going to benefit some more than others.
You're welcome to move to Somalia where there is no government to take your money or trample on your freedoms. Just don't expect to have the benefits of a stable currency to trade with, a government to enforce contracts, large scale water purification to give you cheap arsenic free drinking water, or even a public police force to keep people from trying to take your property.
News of document removal comes on Friday, so fewer readers? Check.
People gossiping about removal of document instead of contents? Check.
People blaming republicans, conservatives, FOX News, and general unfairness instead of the rich? Check.
Advertising to elect a president and support staff who will lower taxes the most on the richest real-life gamers the world has ever known? Work in progress, though even a Democrat is a success; so check.
People calling and writing their elected representatives? Not enough to overcome the lobbyists, though that shows occasional signs of change.
Taxes are an expression of faith and comity and the dues paid as part of citizenship. It's perfectly valid to want lower taxes, and to vote for elected officials or take other steps to change tax rates.
But taxes themselves, and the services they provide, are never stolen from you. They are exactly the price you have to pay, and the benefit you receive, for living in a democratic country, even if some benefits aren't directly tangible to you right now.
To call taxes "stealing," when the government is elected by the people, is disgusting and unpatriotic.
So now you want to tax wealth? Get the hell out of here.
Taxing wealth may be a bad (or at least hard to implement) idea
But taxing investment (i.e. wealth-derived) income at a higher rate than the standard income seems fair. Instead, once your wealth is earning you money, you pay less than 15% on such income.
As your salary increases, you progressively move into higher income brackets and pay more taxes. But jump to a point where you only earn money from capital tax gains, then suddenly you are back to 15%?
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture," Pastor Ray Mummer of Dover, Pennsylvania, 2005
You want to know what would happen if you attacked that wealth? Eventually no one would be motivated to do the things that being to earn them such wealth. Progress would stop dead.
This is what randrrhoids actually believe.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
Citizens of soviet russia still had to work and they weren't allowed to keep much of any wealth. They effectively had 100% taxes, and yet they still worked. I'm not suggesting that we should tax wealth or make it illegal not to work, but your assumptions are based on "common sense" rather than fact.
The Congressional Research Service is required by its charter to use the numbers and methodology specified by the congresscritters who request reports. So yeah, it's about as nonpartisan as the congresscritters themselves are. Consider it nothing more than a taxpayer-funded campaign pamphlet printing service. The same goes for the Congressional Budget Office.
I've been saying it since Howard Jarvis and Ronald Reagan implemented their "tax revolt" at the end of the '70s: any benefit from tax cuts and less regulation is temporary, short-term, and soon overridden by the increased size of the crash after the greedy rich people abuse various economic sectors. That's why there was an S&L crises in the '80s, a housing crash in the '90s, bank and housing crises in the oughts, California schools run out of money. Shoot, does anyone think to check the top tax rates under Eisenhower? Even Greenspan was shocked... shocked! that rich people were greedy, that Objectivism is... oh well, why bother, people just filter it through their biases. Brown and Clinton have the best budget surpluses of their eras, then conservatives have to go and mess it up with voodoo economics.
Will some psycho please reenact an episode of Criminal Minds with George Will and Arthur Laffer as victims?
Oracle and unix guy.
Tax fraud was rampant before everything was computerized.
OTOH, we do need to consider that the paper did have real problems. For example, there are almost no dynamics considered. Very few of the variables are lagged. That was one of the Republican complaints.
And it misses some important economic issues such as the declining value of labor versus capital (one would expect owners of capital to do relatively well in a global market with extremely cheap labor available and for that capital to move to foreign locations) and the burden of regulation (which has considerable effect on hiring people and creating new businesses, both which would favor those who own established, working capital). In other words, there are two big, contrary effects which might mask any economic benefit from cutting taxes for the highest income bracket.
As to the article being pulled, it was allegedly done at the behest of Senate Republicans who are a minority in the Senate. Why didn't Democrats block that? In fact, who actually asked for and sequestered the report? Doesn't seem to be a Republican thing to ask for stuff that might run counter to their agenda, but maybe the people who requested it thought they could bury anything inconvenient.
positive thinking can change the world for you. for better or worse! but the sad thing is that these people don't realize that their thinking doesn't change things for everyone else.
i have to keep in mind that this is their job. complicate and confuse things as much as possible, do it incredibly slow, and if theres a wether or not to be an ass if theres a D or R next to their name. the tax rate was incredibly high back in the 40s for the super rich. JFK was taxing the super rich until they were not rich anymore. he took most of the old money from families. i think it needs to happen again. also think the laws on the books need to be enforced. so, starting in that year might have been a mistake, but it was also true. economic growth has nothing to do with the tax rate. doesn't matter how prosperous the country is if my tax rate is HIGHER than bill gates. theres so many loop holes, the super rich don't pay any tax. they will donate to charity to keep from paying tax. i do not blame them for that, if i had the dollars, id do the same. its not a persons job to try to pay more tax. its a persons job to pay less. now, maybe there are loopholes for the lower class, but no one can afford the lawyers, because we are poor. the law makers know nothing of poor. they have never been in a grocery store line taking things off their order....
i have an idea to create jobs. have 2 people at a time follow around and shadow every congressmen and senator, all day, monitor every phone call, take notes. they would do this all day, every day, until their term is over. they would double as body guards. this alone would stop most of the corruption and back door dealings, since everything they do we, the people, should know about anyway. they are working for us, and the betterment of this country, not to steal from us. there might be a few decient honest people in the upper levels of govt, but i haven't seen any. maybe at home their all good people. if they want privacy, quit and let some other person deal with the stress of not being able to lie cheat and steal. i think they should get paid min wage until the end of the year, where the rest of the cash is given to them. that is, if they didn't do anything naughty during that year. the agency looking at it should be paid by the govt, but should be overseen by a board of 11 civilians. no ties when voting, hard for 6 people to all want to lie about the same thing. again, this should all be public, maybe even a lie webcast of every meet.
i know it wont happen. theres too much money to steal. its all right there...
remember, go press the button on the screen and cast your vote for 1 of the 2 rich people next week. i know the machines are wildly inaccurate, and they loose and toss out ballots, and change em too, and make some up, but your vote is important if its counted! wars were faught for your right to vote! it might be the deciding vote to see who wins the throne!
maybe we should fight a war to have the votes counted....
"You want to know what would happen if you attacked that wealth... Progress would stop dead." Please cite one real world example of this hypothesis.
That's what I do with it. I sock it away, in stocks, bonds or other instruments. Sometimes I buy stuff--a car, a nice meal, new clothes, but mostly (~80% of my purchases) I buy paper. I'm under no illusion that this goes back somehow into the pockets of working-class folks.
Take it from a rich guy, I don't want the responsibility for taking care of every shlub in America--I've got other things to worry about. What am I going to do, get ten freaking maids to clean my house every day? I don't want to live in Mexico, or Russia. I want a strong economy built on a mix of services, manufacturing and education. That's what makes stock prices go up, and that's what makes me wealthy.
Taking care of poor people--with heath care, education and unemployment insurance, is actually a really good job for the government. They do it well, and I'm happy to contribute my bit.
Wow I never realised Attila and Genghis-Khan were the same person... thank you for this interesting information, I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter on factually inaccurate history /me rolls eyes
so you neither you read the article nor you can draw conclusions - must belong to tea party or what? The state (or emperor) taxes people not because it is morally good or bad or it is such a big fun. Taxes are collected for two reasons: keep the state running i.e. have those corner stones of civilization like justice system, police, army, administration needed to govern that etc as well as to spend it on things that whoever has the power thinks is good. This may include the circus or some other policy - i.e. effectively redistributing the wealth. Now the way the wealth is redistributed, who gets it and who pays for it is a matter of applicable laws and decisions that folks in a given country have to come to agreement for - for this a certain amount of social cohesion is needed or appropriate oppression apparatus as well as indoctrination in schools ('free market fixes all' is not much different from 'Kim was the greatest leader' in that it is not really true) - this is in fact redistribution already as in an ideal state police and justice system do not need oppress people into anything so one may argue having institutions like say DEA is just as much about redistribution (of money and power) as in case of public schools etc. Once we understand that we can start thinking about two other things: what we want to support with our taxes including prioritizing of targets etc and how we are going to fund those targets with tax. If one find out that money kept in bank is to be taxed because it benefits the society in which banks operate then so be it and we should only hope that decisions like this are based on merit not on basis of wishful thinking and political indoctrination and they get modified if found not working or being inefficient in that what they do. OC reality is different I know but that is ideal to fight for.
Ownership is defined as what you can hold in both hands while running at full tilt. From that perspective, you might want to be careful. There have been plenty of instances where the lowly masses had enough of the current definition of ownership, and decided to change it. Plenty of kings, princes and other wealthy people were suddenly wishing that they could ride their jewels to safety.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
You want to know what would happen if you attacked that wealth? Eventually no one would be motivated to do the things that being to earn them such wealth. Progress would stop dead. You wouldn't have any of the cool stuff technologically that you have today. Sure there may be an occasional person who comes up with a brilliant idea that advances some sector of industry or whatever, but what you really end up with is a bunch of people who will only do what is need to just get by because that's as much recognition for their work as they get.
Yes, yes. People would simply lose ALL hope and waste their entire lives just watching TV reality shows. Without the motivation of the remote possibility of getting filthy rich, no one would ever want to think, create, imagine or actually do anything ever again. Yes, sir, Einstein only thought stuff up for the money. No one would ever give to charity, because that would make themselves, you know, less rich. I could go on, but won't because ...
Jesus, you're fucking stupid.
P.S.
And your NFL football example... Seriously? It has *nothing* to do with the progress, ideas and technology in your rant.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Normally, I am not about Replublicans versus Democrats. I see them both as rather "bought and sold out" groups who behave at the request of big money.
That said, I find it fitting and typical of my observations and expectations of those who subscribe to Republican philosophies. If the truth gets in the way, hide it, change it, deny or it erase it. This type of behavior is known among commoners as deceitful. Others just simply call them liars and cheats.
I understand all too well how people try to cling to their beliefs even when facts and evidence is staring them right in the face. But I see it as a mental weakness or flaw and such people are ill equiped to make important decisions which affect millions of lives across the planet.
Republicans on the warpath against truth, again. Does this means everything Mitt Romney has been saying is completely untrue?
As opposed to you, who is just a complete moron.
Taxing wealth would be the single dumbest idea to ever come up. How exactly is one supposed to save for retirement if they are going to have higher taxes as they save money? (Not to mention the simple problem of how do you decide the value of an asset for the tax purposes - a share of stock does not have any real intrinsic value - its value is based entirely on what someone will pay for it - and that amount is not actually known until such a time as it is sold)
One side is obvious, the other is not. The Republicans have indicated that they object to the tone, and the conclusions, but have not indicated if there were any facts or assumptions that they object to. Objecting to the findings and conclusion when the foundation is solid seems more like censorship than debate.
The cowards haven't even admitted they requested it taken down.
Learn to love Alaska
... and stop this class warfare BS. Increasing revenue doesnt pay off better than reducing expenses. Biz 101. The leftist Socialism doesn't work for creating a productive society. The US was founded on hard work pays off. There is a problem when ~50% of the country doesn't pay a lick in taxes. Basically, for every person that does pay taxes is carrying someone on their back.
name a single billionaire who earned their billions without creating jobs. That's what you just fucking wrote, you shitbag.
"“There were a lot of problems with the report from a real, legitimate economic analysis perspective,” said Antonia Ferrier,"
No, there wasn't. You set up a different set of goals and then complained the report didn't take into account for your made up goals.
These are the same people who complain when the study might be delayed by Sandy.
Then they don't actual raise any factual concerns. Some talk about verbiage that in no way impacts the results.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
the top .1% paid 50%.
We got a great space program, good education program, parks...etc.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I'm not saying it necessarily biases their research, but it seems strange that people working for the government doing nonpartisan work are this involved in the political process:
"Mr. Hungerford, a specialist in public finance who earned his economics doctorate from the University of Michigan, has contributed at least $5,000 this election cycle to a combination of Mr. Obama’s campaign, the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee."
See, the thing most miss is that when higher incomes had higher taxes they'd have to look for tax breaks by hiring, diversifying, expanding, whatever.
With taxes low they can just invest in the stock market. Less aggravation, likely higher (and lower taxaable) income.
So, the markets bloom, they get richer with no aggravation with hiring, firing, building costs, overhead, etc. While the average guy starves.
Wuddooeyeno? IITYWYBMAD? Like nuts? eclecticallyincorrect.com
Sorry, but no party can operate on provable reality. Plausible reality, however, is a different matter. It would be nice if that were required, but because if the difficulty in defining plausible that cannot happen.
IOW, I think that provable lies should disqualify a candidate. (I'm not saying that if he refuses to look at existing evidence he's lying. But he should be able to be called on that by his opponent, and if his opponent can be proven to be lying, the opponent should be disqualified. [Sort of like challenging in the official rules of Scrabble, except that you're allowed to look in the dictionary first.])
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203880704578086771452127606.html
Attila the Hun predates Genghis Khan by about 750 years. Attila was defeated in the Battle at the Catalaunian Plains in 451 AD and died in 453 AD, while Genghis Khan was born (named Temujin) somewhen around 1162 AD and died in 1227.
My boss got into some tax thing where, if he didn't have about 40k more spending, some dire consequence, tax-wise, descended upon his head (according to him, according to his accountant, and I dunno what that consequence might have been.)
He proudly showed me a new pickup with about every feature and luxury you could imagine from light bars to lifts to whatever. 40k spent!
In the meantime, we, his employees, don't have health insurance.
The trickle down... why does it taste so much like... urine?
I used to think that the fact that mid-20th-Century US highest tax bracket rates were in the 80%+ region was a VERY persuasive argument that Republicans had significantly overshot in their efforts to relieve taxation on job-creators, and reached a point where it was more about enriching the rich than any sober policy of trickle-down economics.
However I had the opportunity in September to be seated next to an older gentleman who was a personal accountant in the 1950s. As he explained to me, the tax rates were high but NOBODY paid those rates, nobody. There were so many massive loopholes, and much-easier "wink'n'nudge" accounting going on (than today, in his opinion, although he's been retired for 20 years), he said it was uncommon if a top-bracket individual was paying over 20%, ever.
It was his suspicion that in fact the top tax brackets probably paid the same today in fact, as they ever had, plus/minus 5%.
I didn't perceive him as a demogogue of either side, and he was pretty comprehensive in his discussion. I was convinced that the "taxes were higher in the old days and we were great" is also, in reality, as much bullshit as what usually comes from politicians' mouths otherwise.
-Styopa
Howard Hughes.
The tax "reform" acts of the 1980s - supported by both Republicans and Democrats - shifted the tax burden off the wealthy and corporations and onto the middle class. 30 years of gradual destruction of the middle class ensued. Today, instead of a progressive system of taxation, the US has a system where the wealthiest and the largest corporations pay little or no tax, while those least capable pay the most. Having a bunch of millionaires under the influence of corporate contributions - then and now - make tax policy is the definition of conflict of interest and reveals the total corruption at the heart of the US system - and its drift toward oligarchy, now almost complete.
About "Fairness." Ok. Let's think about this. The government gives me a road to ride on. It also gives the rich guy a road to ride on. Is the road it gives the rich guy any better than the one it gives me? No? Then why does the rich guy have to pay more for it?
The government gives me an army to protect me. It also gives the rich guy protection. Is the protection it gives the rich guy any better than the protection it gives me? No? Then why does the rich guy have to pay more for it?
So no, it's not about fairness. What it's about is capacity. When there's a heavy object to be moved, you -- perfectly reasonably -- ask the little guy to hold the door, and the big guy to carry it. And he does. Because he knows his appropriate contribution is made in that scale, and he knows the little guy simply can't do it. The reason it's appropriate is because it's scaled to his capacity, and in society, we consider it appropriate -- not fair, but appropriate to contribute proportionally according to our abilities.
Any rich person with any sense of honor at all doesn't grinch for one second about taxes.
One last thing: If you're rich, your taxes weren't too high. The one precludes the other. And as long as you're taxed on earnings, rather than what you have, you're not going to get significantly less rich due to any change in income tax rates.
On the other hand, when you already don't have enough money to have any left over from your earnings, and you have no savings, and someone decides to take more from your earnings... that's a whole 'nuther ball of wax.
So rich people, buck up and do your part. If you want respect, that's the golden path, right there. That, and unforced charitable giving.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
USSR had a really shitty space program. Oh, wait...
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Huh..... (Gotta get something checked... I don't know if I didn't read it or didn't see it.)
Eventually no one would be motivated to do the things that being to earn them such wealth. Progress would stop dead.
We've had 94% income tax in the US. Progress was as fast in that time as it's ever been.
Think people will play NFL football for $35,000 a year? Not in this lifetime.
There are piles willing to play college ball for free. If you offered an "open" spot on the Cowboys for a lineman for $10,000 a year, I think you'd get more than 10,000 applicants.
In short, you are wrong, so massively so, you should see a doctor about your brain damage.
Learn to love Alaska
If this were any other subject, I can just imagine the screaming going on around here about correlation not proving causation. But since this is about those rich S.O.B.'s and their Republican shills, I hear nothing but crickets. High taxes hinder capital accumulation, and capital investment is the bedrock of modern civilization. I would like to see someone argue the contrary.
No one with any sophisticated understanding of economics thinks that the relationship between taxes and prosperity exists in a vacuum. First of all, there are more taxes than simply federal taxes. Second, there are regulations. Third, there is a greater or lesser opportunity to invest abroad.
Sorry, but it's just not that simple.
quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.
Why do I feel like I was trolled by Poe's Law?
Learn to love Alaska
There were estimates early in Tiger Woods' career that his earnings would eventually hit a billion. So might JK Rowling. Whether they do or not, you take the point. Modern technology does allow a single person to entertain literally billions of people, and they only have to pay a nominal sum to return the favour with a billion dollars. The net itself can basically eliminate all entertainment middlemen.
He's written some very interesting reports on the economic effects of tax policy on income, like this one from 12/2011, entitled "Changes in the Distribution of Income Among Tax Filers Between 1996 and 2006: The Role of Labor Income, Capital Income, and Tax Policy", which describes contributors of modern income inequality.
He points out that "the poorest tax filers (bottom 20%) saw average after-tax income fall by 6% between 1996 and 2006, while those in the richest quintile (top 20%) saw their average after-tax income rise by 38% over the same period. This rise in income is significantly smaller than the rise in income at the top of the income distribution. The richest 1% of tax filers experienced a 74% increase in after-tax income and the richest 0.1% (one tax filer in a thousand) saw their after-tax income almost double (an increase of 96%)."
Quite interesting.
I'll bet Gates would have done everything he did for even 1% of what he actually made (a 'mere' 400mil). The top earners are vastly overpaid.
$35K wouldn't be enough for NFL players since they will face a relatively early retirement forced by their accumulated injuries and because they spend a great deal of time on the road, but I'll bet PLENTY would play for $150K with a good retirement and compensation package.
Of course, that wouldn't lower the cost of a ticket one jot, the owners would soak it all up.
You want to know what would happen if you attacked that wealth? Eventually no one would be motivated to do the things that being to earn them such wealth. Progress would stop dead.
This is what randrrhoids actually believe.
The first. most blatant and most fatal flaw in Atlas Shrugged is that it assumes that all the creative people are Conservative/Libertarian. No Ted Turners, no Bill Gatess, no Warren Buffets. Even as young and clueless as I was when I first read it I knew that was nonsense, just like the "30-minute" speech that patently isn't. The first time I actually skipped over part of a book, no matter how tedious ("how dim does she think I am that I haven't gotten the point by now and if I didn't is hammering me over the head with it going to help?")
The idea that wealthy people will stop doing things that make them wealthy if you take some of that wealth away isn't actually codified in Rand's writings that I know of, but I think everyone pretty well agrees that after the first 200K or so of income you're no longer working to "make a living", you're working to Prove a Point. Money is just one of the more popular ways of keeping score. Naturally, everyone wants to be given things (like Lower Taxes Every Day [TM]) and nobody wants to have things taken from them, but it's not like anyone with a fat bank account is going to simply up and quit. Especially in times like these where the popular meme is that you become successful (implying wealthy) by doing something before anyone else does it first.
Let the NFL gods hear it here on Slashdot, where I am sure they are watching with bated breath. I will play NFL for FREE. I love football. I will sacrifice my body for athletic competition. Just like triathletes, marathon runners, rugby players in the US, track and feild athletes, cyclists, golfers, basketball players, etc etc etc.
So tell me again what this has to do with science and technology???
after richie rich sends your well-paying job to china and makes a bundle on the deal, someday you will get lucky, standing outside his gates, that he needs someone to wash his car. he'll give you a whole dollar for the privilege
and as the soapy water drips off his rolls royce, he'll make a witty joke about trickle down economics, and you'll laugh heartily and smile, because you need that dollar to eat
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
> share of income accruing to the top 0.1% of U.S. ... 12.3% by 2007 before falling to 9.2% due to the 2007-2009
> families
So...when times are good, companies earn money and those who own them earn more, and when times are bad, it collapses rapidly. Meanwhile, fairly static income of those who don't own corporations shifts much more slowly.
It also blathers on loudly about "income disparities", which is a related irrelevancy. What matters is quality and longevity of life on average, number of calories or wiis per person, not whether a rich person's income as multiple of "average worker's" skyrockets in good times, which you would expect it to.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Why are things even being removed from the LOC in the first place?
This is blatant censorship.
How exactly is one supposed to save for retirement if they are going to have higher taxes as they save money?
He's a liberal. His idea of retirement is being taken out back and getting shot in the head for the good of the Motherland. Ergo, no one need save anything because you work until you die (because you die when you can work no more).
Genghis Khan != Attila the Hun.
Well, income inequality drives wealth inequality, and vice versa. Tackle one, and the other follows.
That said, inheritance taxes really should be extremely high above a certain amount. The ability of the children of rich parents to inherit the wealth of their parents is one of the major things sustaining wealth inequality.
How is taxing income that comes with risk (investment income) more than income that comes with no risk (salary) fair? People lose money investing all the time, would they get those higher taxes back? Money being invested has already been taxed, why should it even be taxed again just because you invested it and it paid off? Let alone be taxed MORE or even the same as standard income? As far as the graduated tax brackets, those are also unfair. Why should anyone pay a higher percentage just because they earn more? They will already PAY more in number of dollars because they earn more.
While my statement does have a similarity to the plot of Atlas Shrugged, it is just a fact, and i'm not using a fictional book as the basis of my argument. If you think people who make more should contribute more in taxes AND those who are able to hold onto more should then be taxed EVEN MORE you're full on proponent of redistribution. Pretending like there are limits/thresholds where the excessive taxation ends assumes that the need to continue to take more to prop up those who view government provided sustenance as their right will actually level off. It won't, it will just keep growing. Even if the government was as close to 100% efficient with redistribution as it could be, eventually that bar of $250K will edge lower and lower till no one is making more than middle of the middle class. Now tell me, do you really think people will contribute to that sort of societal rape at the same level as they do now? Ted Turner, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet would all be down to $50K per year just like everyone else. If you don't reward exceptionalism, you're rewarding the opposite. Bill Gates is known as a philanthropist because he gives a buttload of his hard earned money ON HIS OWN. Not because he's coerced by taxation. You people who think redistribution will work...I hope beyond hope you won't have to see the true utter end that will come from it. I hope you'll see before it goes too far that it should not exist even at a small level.
A lot of the details of Atlas Shrugged end up sounding a bit goofy today, almost a caricature of the conservative view of liberalism turned full on communist/socialist. And while I won't expect to ever find a hideout in the Rockies hidden from view by a massive cloaking system, you and everyone else will lose the creative genius that thrives in a free market. Not because they run off an hide, but because they will just lose the will to be exceptional when exceptional is seen as unfair to the less exceptional.
Also the false ideology WILL crumble exactly as it does in the book. Those who are meaningfully creative may label themselves Liberal or Democratic now, but when they see their work stolen from them, I guarantee you that more of them than not will react in a very libertarian way. Warren Buffet can give 100% of his wealth and income to the government, but that is the tiniest drop in the bucket of their budget. But that's his choice. If Bill Gates was still in charge of Microsoft and the government came along as said he had to give Windows and MS Office away for free because people "needed" it, you think he would allow his business to be crushed by such a ridiculous request? If Ted Turner had to give up all but one of his company assets...one channel for example, do you think he's still going to feel like running a media empire? I mean it wasn't FAIR that he had such a large percentage of the market. Atlas Shrugged shows things happening on a pace that I think even someone with your delusions would be able to realize that something terrible was happening. But it happens much more insidiously that is portrayed by Rand. Good business owners adjust to try to maximize their profitability within whatever regulations the government cooks up. Sometimes it seems like a back and forth struggle with business gaining ground as often as they lose it. But in fact it's more like business takes 3 steps forward for every 4 steps back. Harder to notice that it's all moving backwards, and it may not look like a cliff behind them, but it gets pretty steep and even the most business savvy CEO will not be able to withstand a government that presumes to redistribute based on greater societal needs.
The USSR fell apart from how they tried to keep pace with the nuclear and space races. Fear will drive people only so far. And without people who take the time and money to be smart enough to build a rocket that can safely make it to the moon and back with human cargo, how would that have happened? Even mother russia can't threaten a fry cook into suddenly understanding how to build a solid fuel booster system. What the heck is escape velocity again?
That's the version US propaganda invented. In reality it was completely different -- and I was there to see it.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
lol.. you expect republican congress critters to be slashdot posters? Democrats congress critters might when it's election time and there is a need to astroturf. Do you expect some spokesman to come out and say "we requested this to be taken down"?
How about it was taken down because complaints about it appearing bias was actually true enough to at least on the surface make that appearance. Its methodology is obviously in question as it says there is no economic change with the top tax rates but somehow there is a magical process happening that lower rates concentrate the wealth in the rich and takes from the poor. And if the difference in the income disparage is the amount of taxes the top earners make, in can't be the difference in some mythical magical tax rate because it wouldn't somehow put money into the lower end earner's pockets.
But here is something to wrap you mind around, in economic good times, tax rates don't really matter. It's not until a slow economy that it matter and then only to the extend that other costs of doing business can be mitigated. The biggest costs will be the costs of energy and that is one thing that you can look back and actually pin to any growth or slowing (within a year or so) we have had. Energy costs has the most of an impact.
Ha ha, no. You mean the confidence of some people that may or may not be in majority.
lol.. you expect republican congress critters to be slashdot posters? Democrats congress critters might when it's election time and there is a need to astroturf. Do you expect some spokesman to come out and say "we requested this to be taken down"?
No, but when the press asks a simple and direct question like "was the Republican party responsible for the takedown" that they'd answer. They haven't. They refuse to comment.
How about it was taken down because complaints about it appearing bias was actually true enough to at least on the surface make that appearance.
Who complained? The Republicans haven't said they did it. That's what my complaint was. Nobody has come forward as the complainer.
. Its methodology is obviously in question as it says there is no economic change with the top tax rates but somehow there is a magical process happening that lower rates concentrate the wealth in the rich and takes from the poor.
Exactly what I said, the complaints are not about the methodology, other than "we don't like the answer, so we assert the methodology is flawed, though we have no specific problem with the methodology."
Learn to love Alaska
With a tax rate of 80% the incentive to find loopholes is great, when the tax rate is 15 or 20%, the incentive is much less.
Faced with a 95% tax on his income, John Lennon left England for the US as a tax exile.
Faced with a similar tax rate, U2 moved out of Ireland, for tax purposes.
The idea of "geting the rich to pay through the nose" relies on the mistaken belief that the rich have no alternative...
Ken
honest, or unbiased, or "everybody who is reasonable agrees" or any other bull
All the arguments about tax rates tend to be aimed to mislead the no-information voters (people who get their news from comics like Stewart, Colbert, and Mahr instead of from multiple, independent journalists, original source documents, etc). Yes, tax rates have been FAR higher in the past than they are now but people like the Kennedys, Carnegies, Rockefellers, etc never actually paid those rates. The super-rich hire excellent lawyers and accountants and they find ways to dodge those rates (i.e. the government does not actually collect huge piles of money from them). Tax rates are not the same as tax levels. Upper-middle class families and small businesses however do not generally find it so easy to be technically subject to high RATES while not actually paying much money... so they get hit disproportionally.
I continue to be amazed at the gullibility of Obama supporters who listen to all their favorite rich people like Gates and Buffet and entertainers call for higher tax rates "on the rich" ... sooner or later you'd think they'd catch-on to the scam! The super rich can pay all the high taxes they want any time they want (just write that big old check and mail it to the treasury!) ... but they don't. They call for higher RATES on "the rich" while they plan never pay those rates; if the super rich thought they'd actually end up paying, they would be opposed (you don't get rich by overpaying your taxes). By calling for higher taxes on the rich and not actually paying higher taxes (which they are already free to do now under current law), they hope their fans will not be mad at them for being rich.
I personally dislike Romney, but his idea of putting a cap on total deductions anyone can take is one of the freshest tax reform ideas I've seen in a long time
Perhaps they don't know why it was taken down and perhaps it wasn't taken down because of them- at least not as a party aspiration. People who are republican can act independent of any concerted efforts.
Actually, the article mentions specific complaints by republicans.I think you are confusing not admitting to demanding it to be taken down with something of a less nature in complaining of it's bias which is on the record and no republican is running from.
Actually, you should read the article again. FTFA
And of course everything negative being said about it is attributed to democrats or people working for democrats. How you got that out of the article is left to the imagination I guess. At least if I want to put it politely that is.
Attila and Genghis Khan were completely different historical figures -- there was like a MILLENIUM or such between them.
And anyway, trying to interpret old history through modern prejudices and stereotypes is, to put it mildly, cringeworthy.
One of the ways to do biased studies is to be selective about which ones you release. Just release the favorable ones and suppress the unfavorable ones; that allows you to be biased while using nonpartisan studies. You may point out that the Republicans wanted this study suppressed, but look at it the other way: how did this study get out in the first place?
Wikipedia explains that not all of the reports produced by CRS are released to the public, and some only get out because they are leaked. Having a report that makes good anti-Republican headlines released less than two months before the election should immediately raise suspicions of how it was chosen to be released, and how many reports unfavorable to Democrats were not chosen.
You seem to be unaware of the fact that Attila and Genghis Khan were different persons...
So in modern times there would be the many massive loopholes and the Reagan tax-cuts and the Bush tax-cuts helping the rich. Unless someone has evidence that politicians have (silently) been closing those massive loopholes to maintain tax revenue.
Yeah, there is little evidence that cutting taxes for the rich spurs economic growth. But there is also no good evidence that raising taxes and spending it on "stimulus packages" works either, or that subsidizing "renewable energy companies" works. There is no good evidence that welfare helps move people out of poverty, or that spending more money on public schools produces better outcomes. There is no good evidence that DHS works, that anti-terrorism efforts are worth their money, or that Obamacare improves outcomes or reduces costs. Economic policies of both the left and the right are based on guesswork and ideology.
Both parties make wild assertions about what we need to spend money on at the federal level. And the real motivation behind all that spending is just paying off political constituencies, whether it's corporations, unions, the military, the rich, the poor, welfare recipients, or college students. And the solution is to spend less and tax less, across the board, not necessarily because that is "good for the country" in some grand economic scheme, but because it lets people keep more of what they earned.
(Unlike federal taxes, local taxes generally produce tangible results and address identifiable needs. And at the local level, people understand that if taxes go to high, tax payers start moving away.)
... like Olimpiy Kvitkin in another era, another system:
The results of Olimpiy Kvitkin's census were simply unpublishable. Within days of the first, still-secret findings being delivered to the Kremlin, he and three senior colleagues were arrested.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20157891
Readers
Want to read that report? go here and download the PDF -> http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/ Thanks to Rachael Maddow for making this available
Geek Hillbilly
Didn't he inherit a fortune from his father? Doesn't sound like he worked his way up from rags, does it?
TRULY creative people are not in it for the money, unless their particular form of creativity is making money. The stereotype of the "starving artist" comes precisely because there were so many of them. Although the more common case is likely to be the "just-getting-by" artist. People like Vincent van Gogh, who only sold one painting in his life. People like Linus Torvalds, who was offered all sorts of cash when Linux went mainstream, but was content with a fairly modest employment, instead (not so modest that he can't afford a Mercedes, I note). Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, whose salary was not the miniscule amount popularly depicted, but about the equivalent of a decent software developer. J.R.R. Tolkien, who kept his day job, as did Albert Einstein. With a few exceptions, in fact, the creative people who are making the pots of cash are people of mediocre creativity but great at marketing themselves. J.K. Rowling is one of those exceptions, but she never gave the impression that becoming richer than the Queen was what she wanted or needed to do what she did - just getting off the dole sufficient.
Anyway, the whole argument is specious. No one I know of is talking about cutting the Golden Goose open. For the most part the talk is about simply returning to historical taxation levels from back before everything went in the toilet and people didn't expect something for nothing as a matter of course. Back when I paid 30% and felt a whole lot more prosperous than I do now.
How is taxing income that comes with risk (investment income) more than income that comes with no risk (salary) fair?
I'd say there's plenty of risk associated with earning a salary. Every time you change jobs to increase your salary there's the risk of the company you work for going under and you being unable to get a new job. Then there's the risk of getting a mortgage or long-term lease near enough to your job that you can actually get to work, of buying a car so you can get to work, of money invested in education...
What's more, even the unlikely event that a wealthy person who's earning income through investment does lose it all, they're still not any worse off than the salaried worker who never had it in the first place! In fact they're probably better off - they have better contacts, are less likely to have student loan debts, may well still own assets like their home outright with no mortgage...
Anyone who thinks there are nonpartisan organizations in Washinton has either not been exposed to that great Washington experience or is seriously deluded by their parties kool aide. It is easy to just scream cover up, but unless you look at the methodology of the report you can't come to that conclusion. The fact is it was probably taken down because of faulty conclusions that people use as gospel because it has a government letterhead.
The only way to get a truly good sense if the truth in Washington is to have reports prepared by opposing organizations of KNOWN bias. You then have to come to your own conclusion which will of course be heavily biased.
The truth is that in politics, truth is not measured against facts, it is measured against your agenda.
I understand that no one here likes conservatives, but you can't let the delusional thinking of a few conservatives define the whole group anymore than you can let the delusional thing if a few libs define all if them.
And the idea is that they need to be "more competitive".
So, yes.
And even more corpses would not be so if not for the murderous efficiencies achieved by the governments that replaced them. Be careful to whom you give power. Tyrants don't care which orations lead to their power.
Bank loans get paid back WITH INTEREST.
That means the poorer person (since they are having to take a loan, they can't be a rich enough to put money in there to be loaned) has to pay for the value PLUS INTEREST, making the purchase of that good more expensive than it would be for a richer person.
And that money trickles to the person who put the money in there for the loan in the first place: SOMEONE RICHER.
Trickling UP.
Here is a sort-of rebuttal. As a disclaimer, I intend to vote for Jill Stein as a protest vote because I live in a "safe state" for Obama and both major US parties are IMHO right wing compared to the rest of the world, as "Hatta" below suggests. I certainly agree with a lot of the spirit of what you wrote -- however I feel you are being unfair to conservatives (even with a nod to William Buckley as you did) as well as post-modernists who all make several good *emotional* points even if their proposed solutions may be tragic. What follows are some examples.
=== Abortion
Exactly when human life begins to have moral value during pregnancy is essentially a religious question with mystical origins. If you believe that human life begins at conception, then the fact that there are over a million abortions a year (a million annual murders from that point of view) pretty much can emotionally eclipse most other issues (as a "Holocaust" every decade). Personally, I feel many conservatives are hypocrites in arguing life must be protected from conception to birth, but then after birth it is OK to destroy families economically. In practice many conservative economic positions tend to increase the number of abortions because women fear a future without a social safety net. That is why so many US Catholics vote for Democrats, to reduce abortions by improving social conditions for everyone. Also, outlawing abortions may not really reduce the number much in practice. Did criminalization stop US drug use? But that ironic inconsistency in conservative policy does not deny the core emotional concern of a holocaust every decade of ten million or more defenseless human murdered (to those who think that way). On the other hand, if you think the moral value of human life begins sometime significantly only months after conception (or have some other metaphysical take on this), then this may just be a non-issue. In the 1800s, many US citizens saw little wrong with the enslavement of African Americans who were then seen by many as somehow less than fully human, which thus somehow justifying their enslavement similar to owning a horse. I'm not saying the abortion and slavery are the same, just that overall opinions on the moral worth of human lives can obviously change.
=== The politics of science
Despite your dismissal of post-modernists, the fact is, science is heavily politicized. Read the book "Disciplined Minds" for the gory details. It is the conservatives who have been fighting most against the increase of institutionalized compulsory schooling (like by denigrating academia, or by fighting to legalize a homeschooling alternative to public schooling). Compulsory public schooling has its roots in 1800s Prussia. Formal compulsory schooling is a different thing than "education" which was previously done mostly at home or through tutors or via apprenticeships or on the job or at libraries. According to John Taylor Gatto, schooling was designed to reduce human beings to the emotional state where they were ready to be Prussian cannon fodder and Prussian wage slaves in the Prussian military machine. While as above I plan to vote for Jill Stein for her positions overall (especially her position on health issues), I disagree strongly with her position to expand formal schooling.
=== Economics
US industrial productivity has more than doubled since the 1980s, but real wages for most workers (especially male workers) have been stagnant or declined. Where has all this extra productivity gone? Because wages have not kept pace, to buy this extra productivity, workers have had to take out loans if they can access it at all. Thus our recent financial crisis as it all collapsed. Between the increase in the workforce by women moving away from the home and childcare and into the workforce, and the rise in robotics and other automation, workers have less and less bargaining power. Meanwhile US families and communities fall apart from lack of volunteer labor. In practice US conservatives have no real answer to this question
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
>People lose money investing all the time, would they get those higher taxes back?
They do. They only get taxed on net. If one investment earns $100 and the other loses $100, you have 0 net and therefore pay no taxes.
>Money being invested has already been taxed, why should it even be taxed again just because you invested it and it paid off?
All income is taxed. There are exceptions like income from a Roth IRA, but these exceptions have caps.
>Let alone be taxed MORE or even the same as standard income?
Capital gains tax (tax on investment income) is 20%. Most tech earning brackets are higher than that, plus you have to pay payroll and SS tax. During my early working years (Clinton) capital gains was taxed at 20% if you held your stock for a full year. Now it's 20% for day traders too.
Think people will play NFL football for $35,000 a year? Not in this lifetime. This is just the stupidest concept you could have possibly brought to an already silly topic.
Considering that people play Arena Football for $400 a game, I think they'd jump at the chance to get paid that much to be on a nationally televised game.
According to the report:
"At the same time, the average tax rate paid by the top 0.1% fell from over 50% in 1945 to about 25% in 2009."
i.e. much more than the "less than 20%" you gave.
with taxes
If you're going to go all bollocks about Stalin being atheist, Hitler was a Christian.
And it was Marx who came up with the communism AS A TRANSITION TO UTOPIA. It was
a) Under capitalism, power corrupts and people decide that concentrating power in the ruling class is a bad idea so move to communism
b) Under communism, power corrupts and people decide that concentrating power in the government is a bad move so decide to forbid concentration of power leading to Utopia.
Then again, you have your ideology and it insists that even though you're a monster, everyone else is, so you shouldn't improve yourself.
Government research agencies were operating under extreme pressure from ultra left wing political interests to generate only the results they wanted, or risk losing their jobs.
It is hard to believe how much projection there is on the extreme right. If you retargeted GOP words back on themselves, then they may well be more accurate. After-all, if you look at recent history:
+ The GOP are about big government. (Reagan, Bush & Bush)
+ They are fiscally irresponsible. (Reagan failed to balance the budget, but wasn't completely nuts. George W's own treasury secretary resigned because of his attitude towards money.)
+ They are obstructionist, but accuse Dems of not working across the table. (They will ask for the moon and more -- e.g., Debt ceiling, Eric Holder, the list is endless)
+ They believe Dems are engaging in voter fraud, and then aggressively engage in their own voter suppression campaign.
+ They believe they have the "truth" and others are just biased. (The kicker for me is that O'Reilly believes he's an independent, and his show is a "Spin Free Zone"
+ They believe their freedoms are restricted when they cannot restrict the freedoms of others. (The social conservative influence.)
There is a lot to respect about the historical GOP, but recently, they have become irresponsible. + They are disliked by about 70-80% of the rest of the world
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
"Romney wants to cut taxes for the rich, but a never-released economic report proves him wrong".
It *was* released, and then quietly retracted. You can grab a copy here.
One of the complaints was the phrase "Bush era tax cuts" doesn't set the correct tone.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
47% of tax FILERS pay no net INCOME TAX (yes, they pay taxes on their cellphones, auto tires, gasoline, etc)
They pay plenty of other taxes. Just no federal income tax.
are you prepared to defend the idea that increasing taxes on higher income individuals will somehow stimulate the economy? I'd like to see that defense.
Just take economics 101.
This is pretty basic stuff. So, my question to you, is where is the substance behind all that outrage?
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
Person A has an income of $200 and is taxed at 20%. Person B has $800 and is taxed at 10%.
What happens?
Changing the tax rate is one of the most fundamental things you can do to structure a society. If you opt for a proportionally lower tax rate on high income earners, over time they will control a greater share of the total wealth. The kicker is that you don't even need to have a nominally-higher tax rate, as long as it's not directly proportional to your income you still have the same effect.
If you don't have an infinite supply of wealth, then when wealth shifts to the top, it comes from somewhere. Unless you believe that Warren Buffet is literally creating billions of dollars out of raw materials with his own two hands, then you must believe that value originated from others with lower income. Re-allocation happens all the time, it's more often called "making a profit" than "taxation". And when someone can create billions of dollars worth of wealth without taking or using anything from anybody, I'll think about letting them keep all of it.
This country was founded on the principle of democracy, not oligarchy.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
It is still nicer to live in the US than many other places, largely due to the benefits of democracy and government programs which our taxes have supported. To some degree, you get what you pay for.
Also, the fixing of high base tax rates with strategic loopholes is a mechanism the feds can use to encourage desired behavior - such as the tax rebates on the purchase of electric vehicles. The merit of such government action can be argued, but as with many things, it may be beneficial to society in moderation.
Personally, I would love to someday see a positive reinforcement mechanism introduced into the tax system. Imagine if your tax rate earned you a bronze, silver or gold taxpayer status. Then at the DMV you could get service commensurate with your contributions. People could voluntarily choose a higher tax-rate, and benefit accordingly.
I think you meant "Genghis Khan" at the top, and not "Attila the Hun". Two different people.
btw, when the big G sacked Samarkand, he held up the head of a priest and declared to the crowd that he was God's punishment for their sins.
Also, the old Roman Republic placed a great deal of emphasis on merit, but they were also handicapped by the (not completely inaccurate) notion that competent people have competent children.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
The author has been a Democrat donor for over a decade. But Anyone claiming to be nonpartisan must be completely unbiased right?
http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/25/obama-donor-wrote-nonpartisan-congressional-report-backing-liberal-tax-policy/#ixzz27ZNffrK8
Attila the Hun and Genghis Khan are two different people. But thanks for playing.
Sadly, at the start, you referenced Attila the Hun, who lived almost a century before the ACTUAL leader you are describing -- Genghis Khan.
Edit: I meant "almost a millennium" even though it was only like 800 years.
I've never found terribly difficult to put the warts of the two big parties into one-to-one correspondence. Same warts, different wart hairs. Over the past decade or two, one especially large wart on the Republican side increasingly stands apart and alone: their raging mania to abolish the concept of non-partisan politics.
I listen to political podcasts which frequently point out an outstanding and effective tradition of non-partisanship among the Republican ranks during the 1960s and 1970s that has subsequently withered on the vine. I doubt their forebears would be proud of how the party has evolved on this particular issue.
When the Democrats are elected, there are many hard-core Republicans who increasingly refuse to concede their right to govern as the elected government, and who believe that obstructing every possible Democratic initiative is their gift to humanity. Actually, their gift to humanity would be allowing the elected government to actually govern, if you really believe in democracy after all.
At the time of Lincoln, few people identified themselves as Americans. If you asked a person on the street he would say "I'm a Virginian" especially if he was a Virginian.
Republicans are all Virginians these days. They aren't Americans. They're Republicans. There is either a Virginian in the White House, or they consider the country to be under the control of infidels to be resisted by any method permitted in love or warfare.
This is a tragic evolution of the American nation promulgated by traitors to the founding fathers.
You're half right, and completely wrong.
Government is a monopoly. It is a monopoly on the use of force. The "competitive market" for government is commonly called warfare.
Government is a natural monopoly. It is the natural monopoly created to control other natural monopolies. When markets are more efficient, they should be used. When capital requirements to enter a market are high enough to preclude competition, or when services are required to be universal, markets are not efficient.
Governments are evil, but a necessary evil. The state where private interests take over the duties and methods of government is commonly called Fascism. We must resist equally the government wishing to enslave its citizens, and the private interests wishing to do the same thing. At the moment, private interest has the upper hand. Be aware of what you are advocating: If you do not seek a fascist state, you should reconsider your views on government.
The question of whether or not governments produce something is wholly irrelevant to the purpose of governments.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
There are a lot of CRS reports that are not available on the government's website any longer--a common occurrence; a quick Google shows that this is all over the web regardless. The NYT is becoming more and more known for its stretching of the facts to fit thier agenda. This is a great example!
TFA, 1st Para: "The Congressional Research Service has withdrawn an economic report that found no correlation between top tax rates and economic growth, a central tenet of conservative economic theory, after Senate Republicans raised concerns about the paper’s findings and wording."
What the CRS Report says: "This report attempts to clarify whether or not there is an association between the tax rates of the highest income taxpayers and economic growth...There is not conclusive evidence, however, to substantiate a clear relationship between the 65-year steady reduction in the top tax rates and economic growth. Analysis of such data suggests the reduction in the top tax rates have had little association with saving, investment, or productivity growth."
TFA, 5th Para: "Republicans did not say whether they had asked the research service, a nonpartisan arm of the Library of Congress, to take the report out of circulation, but they were clear that they protested its tone and findings." == Contradicts their first paragraph.
So we have a report, based on the variables that the authors of this report chose, that says that tax rates are not well correlated with economic growth. One of thousands.
Word!
This one data point of yours is terribly convincing. Thank you so very much for this rigorous addition to the discourse.
If a company with only 10 employees managed to rake in $100 million a year, it only makes sense they would get paid ~$10 million salaries. Along those lines, I am (generally*) okay with athletes making ridiculous amounts of money for playing a game, as their teams bring in those millions of dollars anyways, and the players are doing the bulk of the work that earns that money. If the players didn't get those 8-figure contracts, it would be even more money in the pockets of managers and owners, which would be no better.
*I do think sports teams/arenas need to stop getting subsidized by tax payers, but after the teams pay back their host cities they are free to pay their athletes as much as they can afford to.
My webcomic
If you read the report, the analysis consists of several regressions run across multiple discontinuous functions. This is not a good method for obtaining reliable results and I can understand pulling the report because the analysis is a hack job. However, the data is worth looking at. One of the most interesting charts is Figure 6: "Shares of Total Income of the Top 0.1% and Top 0.01% Since1945". This chart shows a nice well behaved function from 1945 to somewhere in the early 1970s where it suddenly changes behavior and performs much differently up to the current period. If I were analyzing this data, I would be more interested in what happened in the early seventies that changed the amount of wealth flowing to the top income earners. This happened before the Reagan tax cuts so I would rule out correlations with tax cuts. It had to be something earlier. Might it have something to do with abandoning the gold standard and allowing the Federal Reserve to print money and feed it into the economy through the banking system? The tax rate charts also have some good information but I will leave them for another comment.
Regardless of the specifics, it's a balancing act. Completely eliminating disparity in wealth despite differences in behavior would disincentivize personal responsibility and individual aspirations. Completely eliminating the redistributive effects of taxation. . .would result in a society fractured into the economic elite wielding power over the masses, wiping out democratic principles that the United States formed to exemplify. There's a reason for a constant tug of war between ends of the political spectrum, even if that is a simplification of economic vs. personal freedoms: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolan_Chart
When the people throw you out of power and bullshit is no longer flying.
Enough see through it just enough.
- It was fairly typical for him to take a city and then kill all of the political leadership, but not punish the populous. He then would let it be known that he knew who had commanded the opposition, and that the fight was now over with their disposal.
I know who I'd vote for in this election.
Did you notice how that didn't actually invalidate my point in any way? I mean, you did read it, right?
How much the people on the bottom pay in taxes doesn't actually have anything to do with anything. It's not like that's a tax bracket everyone is dying to be in. And while you may be correct as to the effective tax rate, the actual tax rate for the median income is 25%, without counting in payroll taxes.
On the subject of tax brackets, the highest tax bracket is $388,351 and above. The highest incomes exceed this by about four orders of magnitude.
Go ahead, justify that for me. Tell me how progressive that is.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
the 9-9-9 plan.
How much do you think people make as professional athletes in the less popular sports? It isn't all that much, but people do it because they like it, just like many musicians could make a far better living doing something else but don't because they like performing..
Oh the joys of slashdot where down modding is a way of not dealing with facts that people do not like.
And it can be undone by simply posting to it which invited any user who's interest is piqued to hit the parent button and see what was attempted to be buried.
Top earner tax rates don't affect the economy, jobs creation, or savings & investment?? FINE! Lets find all the rich people & confiscate all their money--wait...where will they try to hide???
Actually, wealth is taxed right now, indirectly through inflation.
I'd say that it takes a fair bit more than 200k to get to the "prove a point" phase? Why? I make more than that as an actuary and from investments, but with it I make sure that I never have to clean, cook, do the laundry, buy groceries, change a light bulb, fix something, or do basically any manual labor. That isn't cheap in a first world country. The way I see it is, while I could retire and earn a middle-class income from 2 apartments and a house I rent out, I can instead work 7.5 hours 5 times a week and have the rest of my time be real free time, as opposed to spending most of that time doing mundane tasks required to keep a household going.
The only thing radical about that idea is the idea that it is radical.
If you go back to the original Constitution, you find the only taxes the federal government was empowered to lay were import tariffs and land taxes. The former was specifically to implement protectionist policies, not really for revenue per se. The revenue was intended to come almost entirely from the latter, the land taxes. Now go back to your history book, and look up who owned land.
The answer? The wealthy. In the history books, "the rich" and "land owners" are used almost interchangeably, because at that time they were. Only the wealthy could own land, and owning land was the primary sign of wealth. The poor did not own land, and the "merchant class" could own only small amounts of land. The bulk of the land was owned by the super-wealthy.
So why did the original Constitution only allow domestic taxes on land and nothing else? Because that's where the wealth was, and because centuries of experience in Europe made it quite clear that taxing the poor lead to wealth disparity and eventual economic collapse followed by violent revolution. The Founders specifically empowered the federal government to tax the rich, all of the rich, and only the rich. The poor were exempted from taxation by virtue of their inability to own land. It was an implicit progressive taxation scheme on wealth, no more, no less. And note that it was on wealth, not income. Land was an asset.
It was not until long, long after that the income tax was introduced. And ever since then, we've seen a slow but very deliberate shifting of the tax burden away from the wealthy and onto the poor. But make no mistake, the original intent written directly in the Constitution was a progressive tax on wealth, and nothing else. And it was not done by accident, it was a deliberate choice for the long-term stability and well-being of the nation. Clearly everybody has forgotten that lesson.
...Think people will play NFL football for $35,000 a year?...
I'm sure there are any number of people currently unemployed who'd jump at that chance.
The catch, of course, is that they probably couldn't perform the job as well as those currently making considerably more by doing so.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
You're calling my argument specious but you think we need to raise taxes to get back to a time where people didn't expect something for nothing? Raising tax rates on some and giving it to others is exactly what creates that expectation. I can't comment on your own personal financial situation, but if you feel more prosperous when paying more taxes, sign a check today making up the percentage you aren't paying now.
Please enlighten me, and tell me how that communistic regime was destined to succeed...
I am saying, and you know this but chose to pretend not to understand, that if someone actually nets negative, they don't get a check back from the government. That's risk. Even Roth IRA income is taxed eventually, it is just deferred. I don't even know what you're trying to say with the capital gains part of your response. So what? Day traders are taking on even more risk. Investments have a better chance of working out for you the longer you're willing to stick with them. You don't have an opportunity to make > 10% in regular investment as you MIGHT in Day Trading, but long term investment generally has less risk of negative return. Day Trading has a very high chance of losing principal.
You use the term "exploiting" when referring to the fact that someone hires another person to do work. You are using a word that generally has a negative connotation to describe what happens every time someone works for someone else for a wage. If you consider that a bad thing, you are either 5 years old and congratulations on your superb abilities with computers, or you're just missing most of your brain.
rich people don't have enough.
It's just that simple.
Way to show your ignorance :)
Let's wait for the investigation to finish before declaring whether the attack... er report was non-partisan.