Jackson Free Press

Originally posted Feb. 4, this has been our busiest blog of the last week or so. It's turned into an interesting discussion about Bush's economic policies. Feel free to join in.

Original posting:
After primaries in seven states yesterday, Kerry's looking stronger than ever, and Lieberman, finally has dropped out of the race. The Reuters report is here, and Salon has a good article here.

Anyone think that Dean has any chance at a comeback?

Previous Comments

ID

77564

Comment

And, while I'm on the topic of the 2004 presidential election, I enjoyed this column in the WSJ, Credibility of Bush Becomes a Problem, Mostly Self-Inflicted. It starts with: "The Democratic presidential primary competition has been getting almost as much exposure as Janet Jackson did during the Super Bowl. But John Kerry's failed bid to bury John Edwards's candidacy here isn't the most important Election 2004 story of the week. Less noticed, but more consequential, is the gathering threat to President Bush's political standing. And just as with the nose-diving candidacy of Howard Dean, the problem is largely self-inflicted." and there's: "By calling on lawmakers to "cut wasteful spending and be wise with the taxpayers' money," he implicitly fingered the Republican-led Congress for mammoth deficits -- not the costly tax cuts, farm bill and Medicare prescription-drug benefit he signed. And by invoking evidence of "weapons-of-mass-destruction-related program activities" in Iraq -- as opposed to actual weapons -- he improbably suggested that he had been vindicated, and his Democratic skeptics undercut, over the prewar danger Mr. Hussein's Iraq had posed." The election is, so far, more interesting than I thought it might be. If the Democrats can get their act together and run a strong campaign, there seems to be an actual chance that Bush can be defeated. I'm still not certain Kerry's the man to do it, but I could be wrong.

Author

kate

Date

2004-02-04T12:25:09-06:00

ID

77565

Comment

At this point, I doubt Dean can be anything other than a spoiler - unless he gets a surprisingly strong showing in New York, the Upper Midwest, and West Coast states. As far as I'm concerned, he is TOO passionate about what he believes, and this even before he made his "over the top" speech (yes, I strongly believe there IS such a thing as "too much passion") Even before he was "in", I though Kerry was one of the better candidates. Personally, I liked Lieberman the best, followed in a close tie between Edwards and Kerry, then Clark (I have nothing strongly against Clark, although I think his expertise is too specialized in military matters to have a good grasp on domestic issues). Edwards? He doesn't have enough experience (he's served only one term so far if I recall correctly), plus I think his Clintonesque personality makes him too vulnerable to Republican attacks. So now, I will have to go with Kerry, both because he seems the most sober candidate AND the fact that he's pulled ahead really limits the range of choices - unless one of the others can pull a rabbit from the hat. Time ran a fairly good article about him. Even though it was clearly gushing with praise about him, he still seems to be the type we need in the White House: A solid record on foreign affairs and committee hearings, a personality that radiates saneness and competence (even if a little bland, which these days is a plus as far as I'm concerned - personally, I'm tired of "charasmatic personality types" as President), and someone who clearly looks at issues from both sides - ending up not quite as liberal as the Dean fans would like, but certainly would not please any ardent Bush supporter (kind of like me, actually). So all told, now that Lieberman is out - my vote is with Kerry.

Author

Philip

Date

2004-02-04T15:25:08-06:00

ID

77566

Comment

Philip, I agree with you on Edwards "Clintonesque personality makes him vulnerable to Republican attacks." That's *exactly* what my republican brother attacked him on over the weekend, when we were talking about the primaries. That, and the fact that he's a Trial Lawyer somehow condemned him in my brother's eyes. Even if that's all there is to attack him on, those two items provide plenty of FUD for attack. Did you see Charley Reese on the subject, in today's CL? He summed up alot of the candidates nicely, I thought. I know what you mean about "too much passion", but it also seems that the same people who complain about 'slick' candidates are also quick to ding Dean for 'too much passion.' Which bugs me.

Author

kate

Date

2004-02-04T15:57:19-06:00

ID

77567

Comment

Very entertaining Delegate Scorecard from CNN. Which shows Kerry now leads with 244, Dean has 121, Edwards 102, Clark 79, Sharpton 5 and Kucinich 2. To clinch the nomination, 2,161 delegates are needed.

Author

kate

Date

2004-02-04T18:34:35-06:00

ID

77568

Comment

Good riddance to Lieberman. A faux-Republican was not going to beat Bush. Of course, it'll take a lot of convincing for me to believe Kerry will, either. But Bush seems to be doing everything he can these days to help the Dems, so who knows?

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-02-04T23:40:16-06:00

ID

77569

Comment

That Delegate scorecard really shows what these early primaries have become: a way for the corporate media to declare the leaders in their horse race and, thus, put viable candidates out of the race. (Albeit I was thrilled to see both Gephardt and Lieberman drop.) But I do hate the corporate media and the power it regularly abuses. On that note, it's breathtaking to see people more upset by Janet Jackson's boob flash (that I agree was stupid and tasteless, but a"federal investigation"???) than about CBS refusing to air the MoveOn ad. At least no one can ever call them "liberal media" again with a straight face -- and especially not in the traditional meaning of the word "liberal." Gross. I'd boycott them, except I never watch them anyway.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-02-04T23:44:53-06:00

ID

77570

Comment

I am pretty much in agreement with Philip-- not much of a surprise since according to the President Match we both liked Al Sharpton-- that was a shocker. I had Edwards ranked a little lower than Kerry. It's too bad Lieberman couldn't tack to the left enough in the party primaries. I still think he was the most electable Democratic presidential contender. Kerry still needs to prove he can do well in the South, which he hasn't done yet-- notwithstanding his third place finish in Oklahoma.

Author

Ex

Date

2004-02-05T11:12:35-06:00

ID

77571

Comment

Re the Charley Reese piece from the CL the other day: I liked it, too, Kate. Very good job summing up the candidates and their campaigns without all the hyperbole. Just the facts. And he's right about something else, too. Bush is not a conservative. He just plays one on TV (read: CBS).

Author

Nia

Date

2004-02-05T11:41:41-06:00

ID

77572

Comment

I know there is a lot of "beat Bush at all costs" sentiments in the "alternative" political community. Since it looks like Kerry has effectively sewn up the D nomination, I thought it would be interesting to see what folks had to say about him. The Real Kerry is pretty fascinating look about what some locals in New England think about him. I think the next 9 months will reveal a weakening of the "beat Bush at all costs" sentiment as people get to know this knucklehead a little better and people see significant improvements of economy and affairs oversees under Bush. It will be especially interesting to watch him trod out the old favorites of railing against big multi-national corporations (like Heinz) and talking about the pain of the working class (while marrying into over a billion dollar fortune). Trust me . . . he does not feel your pain.

Author

Alan

Date

2004-02-08T11:15:16-06:00

ID

77573

Comment

Alan, That New York Post piece I found wanting (the most polite way I care to put it). Half of the piece was basically cheap class envy and the other half was filled with other petty stuff. This is suitable only for Yow-Yow sensationalist talk radio (of course citing the NY Post in and of itself is enough to make me suspicious of one's ability to think critically without emotion - but let's not go there now). Anywho.... I could break that story down to its very atoms - but I don't have the time. So let me just give a overall comment of the article plus an example of how lacking in critical thinking skills the author is. The Post's skewering Kerry over the Port-a-Potty at a fund raiser I found frankly laughable. If I owned a large mansion and hosted a lot of people at a fund raiser (surely there were a lot of them!), I'd surely not want dozens of them going into my house - it would poetntially create a lot of mess in my bathroom and dirty the part of my floor leading from the front door to the bathroom. Besides, were I at that fundraiser as a guest, I'd certainly hate to stand in line behind a dozen people when I needed "to go". Last, but certainly not least, the people at the fundraiser were likely fellow "Brahmins" themselves rather than ordinary Working Joes. As they would say in London and Sydney - the NY Post is fit only wrap Fish 'n Chips

Author

Philip

Date

2004-02-08T12:16:02-06:00

ID

77574

Comment

And, I don't think Bush feels our pain either. I think they're about even on the level of NOT feeling pain. So, whatever, there. Also, I'm genuinely curious about "significant" improvements in the economy. I'm still of mixed opinion about the state of the economy and the state of the stock market. And where they are both going. My sense is that we are still on fragile footing, and I don't have alot of faith in a full blown recovery. My personal guess (based on some cursory reading) is that we'll see more improvements in fits and starts - 2 steps forward and one step back - for the next year or two. I'm curious both because it will have an effect on the election, and because it effects my 401k account.

Author

kate

Date

2004-02-08T14:43:27-06:00

ID

77575

Comment

Kate, I am not sure I ever really wanted a president who felt our pain, though after 9-11, you would have to come up with a pretty strong argument that said Bush did not, at least emotionally. Economically, you are correct. NEITHER feel our pain. They've both have millions. That's fine with me, only one of them (Kerry) pretends he doesn't. As to the economy and your 401K, take a good look at your latest statements. The three major stock averages are up over 30% in the 12 months ended 2/1/04. That's pretty damn good during any one year stretch you would like to compare. If you aren't feeling good, it is time to change 401K plans. Jobs, much to the donkey's lament, are coming back with unemployment at 5.6%. I know for the past 5 or 6 years, we have been a bit spoiled, but forever (and I mean since post WW2), economists pegged full employment at 6% and we are below that. Finally, for those 94.4% of American's who have a job, both production and salaries are up. Interests rates are still low. The economy is doing quite well. I know Kerry et al will talk about "Mrs. Betty Jones in Pigsdale, Iowa, who had to pay her rent with credit cards last week because . . . ", but the truth is that is heartstring pulling crap because most people don't even know anyone like that. They just want to make you FEEL like things are bad. If you look at the economy really historically, we collectively cannot maintain a recovery for more than 9-10 years. Witness the recessions of 73, 78, 81, 90-91, 01-02. Past that they get tighter. Economies are cyclical and it seems like we have stretched the limit on the last one (the growth of the Internet and resulting new wealth being the main culprit). People always sound like you do at the beginning of one, which is where we are.

Author

Alan

Date

2004-02-08T19:43:51-06:00

ID

77576

Comment

A few drive-by comments: Kate, perhaps you asked the wrong question. It might be more pertinent to ask if Bush is *causing* our economic pain rather than feeling it. I'm certainly not as rosy-eyed as Alan about the economy and that massive deficit we're facing. Not to mention our international standing and our constitutional freedoms. Also, it's hard to imagine an American who didn't feelt he emotional pain of 9-11; that does not, however, mean that Bush has taken wise measures since that time, which is becoming increasingly apparent to more Americans, it seems, many of whom supporting him right after 9-11. Most disturbing, he's shown a willingness to use Americans' pain over that tragedy to pursue some very questionable policies that could hurt us in the long run. Right now, whether or not we've supported Bush in the past, our biggest concern must be over what he is likely to do in his second four years when he isn't facing re-election. And those possibilities are, rightfully in my view, frightening to many people along the political spectrum. As for the NY Post, Philip about said it all. That paper is the National Enquirer of the NY press. Even though a friend of mine is a bureau chief there, I haven't taken much of anything seriously in that paper since the headline, "Massacre at Horror High" appeared in huge letters after the Columbine tragedy. Alan, where in God's green acre did you find this logic: I know there is a lot of "beat Bush at all costs" sentiments in the "alternative" political community. Fascinating, to use your word. This attempt to sweep people you don't agree with all into one camp is a classic logical fallacy. In your world, what would be the "alternative" to the "beat Bush at all costs" crowd? Perhaps: "elect Bush at any costs"? Shows how silly your statement is, no? Give your state's people a bit more credit for being able to think, Alan. People can question their president, and decide he's doing more harm than good, and cast about for a better "alternative," without fitting into your simplistic boxes.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-02-08T21:03:19-06:00

ID

77577

Comment

Donna, you mentioned Bush causing economic pain, but did not address the four or five points I made above. The economy is doing fine. In fact, I believe you have started what is, from all outward appearances, a decent thriving small business under the Bush economy (and the worst part of it at that). The Iraq stuff is fair game, though I think history will treat Bush much like Reagan in foreign affairs (extremely well, e.g. "Tear down this wall", "evil empire", and restoration of democracy to about dozen countries in eastern europe as a result of his policies). Domestically, I do find it poetically hysterical that Bush passed prescription drug coverage which the donkeys tried to pass for a decade (with a D president). Now the only things the donkeys can complain about is that (1) it's not good enough and (2) it cost too much. As for beating Bush at all costs, I know you have heard some of the D debates. That is all they talk about. It is an "all costs" mentality. In fact, of the myriad of special interest factions that now comprise the D party, "beat Bush" is really the only thing holding the party together. Hence my comment about the "alternative" press. A real honest read of any alternative press and that is the theme. I would challenge you to please show me otherwise. Sorry, but that's the "real deal".

Author

Alan

Date

2004-02-09T00:05:51-06:00

ID

77578

Comment

Sorry, but that's the "real deal". Alan, you sound like a used-car salesman. ;-) I'm on press deadline, and mentioned that I was only making "drive-by" comments above. I don't have time to go toe-to-toe with your waxing about the economy and the deficit, and don't exactly feel the need. I don't find your arguments convincing enough to argue back -- and I only say that to you now because you're complaining that I'm not answering you! So I'm telling you why. Our past discussions haven't yielded much, frankly. You just seem to drop in long enough to complain about all us ogre liberals and "Ds" and alt types and make fun of folks who don't think like you. I think it's tiresome. Others may jump in there and parse your numbers, and logic, if they'd like. As for your quick generalization about the "alternative" press, I remind you that you yourself produce a form of alternative media. Otherwise, I'm done showin' until you're done stereotypin'. See ya.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-02-09T00:25:42-06:00

ID

77579

Comment

A couple of points from me. Alan, you pointed out on your own that economies are cyclical. Much like Clinton 'presided over' an economic boom, I think Bush is 'presiding over' the recovery. And, while I agree that some factors are looking up, I'm not convinced that the recovery is here to stay, and that it's benefiting enough people to be long lasting. I hope I'm wrong, but that's what it feels like from the markets I track. I've learned in the past decade to not view the stock market as an indicator of true economic health. It can be one data point among many - but it's subject to too many factors to be reliable marker for me. Also, take a look at the data that's starting to emerge on the widening gap between the rich and the poor. I think we'll see that this recovery is benefitting some, way more than others. And, I'd say the "beat Bush at any costs" is not 'alternative.' It's mainstream. Which, granted, is a semantic quibble. But, in my dealings with 'alternatives' (rather than mainstream democrats, who really are the ones in my opinion with the ABB mentality), there's alot more concern about the actual policies of the people running for office. Also, why not "anybody but Bush?". I'm okay with that being the glue, for now, for the Dems. It's better than "Live in Fear!!!!" that the republicans seem to want to push.

Author

kate

Date

2004-02-09T10:32:46-06:00

ID

77580

Comment

The economy is anything but fine. Even conservative economists believe that Bush's economic policy--if you could call it that--is irresponsible and is providing a very short-term bubble that will quickly derail into record unemployment and an impossible-to-get-out-of national debt. Job growth is where the "real deal" numbers are, amd job growth has been at its lowest numbers in decades. In order to create a sustainable healthy economy, jobs have to be created at something like 200,000 per month. During W's presidency, new job creation has been averaging about 100,000 per month. Last month, a near record high for Bush, mind you, job creation reached a whopping 125,000, far short of what Bush was telling people it would be. The real deal is whether more people are unemployed than before Bush (yes) and whether the standard of living is falling (yes).

Author

Nia

Date

2004-02-09T10:36:41-06:00

ID

77581

Comment

Kate, believe it or not, I agree with you on most points. The "beat Bush" mantra is mainstream, I agree, but it is particularly acute in the alternative press. However, where we differ is that to me, the economy "is" and to you the economy "feels". I look at job growth, stock market, housing starts, wages, productivity and GDP. All are moving significantly in the right direction. The left seems to be (willingly) dialed into doom and gloom on the economy promoted in no small part by the D primary machine. It just ain't so. Again, go back and look at the sentiment in 1980 and 1991 (the beginning of two huge booms). You will find the same sentiments you echo. If the results are the same as either resulting period, I'll have a six-pack, please. Nia, the "irresponsible" policies that Bush put in place still don't put a dent in the fact that the top 1% of taxpayers in the US account for 40+% of all tax collections by the feds. As a student of economics, I know that private dollars get respent through the economy six or seven times vs. 2-2.5 times if the feds do it. The "bubble" argument and the unsustainability was EXACTLY the same when people howled against Reagan lowering capital gains and the top marginal income tax rates. It works. Always has. Always will. By the way, the "real deal" dig was really a dig at Kerry who calls himself the "real deal". However, the used car salesman parallel, Donna, was right on the mark.

Author

Alan

Date

2004-02-09T11:02:21-06:00

ID

77582

Comment

Alan, granted, much of my sense of the economy is based on my 'spidey sense.' However, part of what I do for a living is look at economic forecasts and industry spending and such. So, my spidey sense is based on alot of research. I say 'feels' because I can't quite put my finger on what exactly worries me about the economy - other than the obvious deficit spending, movement of manufacturing and software development and customer service jobs overseas, and slower than expected job growth. I hope I'm wrong - which is why I asked the question. I'm really trying to figure this whole thing out. And the top 1% should be paying the lion's share of taxes. They're the top 1%. They can spare a few million far more easily than the bottom 10% can spare a few hundred. I'll dig through my copy of Wealth and Democracy and get some of the historical data on tax trends, which is what starts to put all these kinds of numbers into perspective.

Author

kate

Date

2004-02-09T11:16:39-06:00

ID

77583

Comment

*I* wasn't talking about John Kerry, Alan. *I* was talking about your comments. Important distinction. I haven't actually formed my opinion about Kerry, yet; I'm still smarting from the report that he's participated in questionable push-polling in the primaries. So your half-baked assumption that you intuitively know what everyone in the "alternative" wing of the country believes is off base per usual. One hint: It would be more interesting to talk with you if you'd leave out the labels and accusations and stick to the issues themselves. But I won't hold my breath. Your whole purpose here seems to be to discredit. Whatever.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-02-09T11:25:18-06:00

ID

77584

Comment

Here's a little bit of historical perspective on current tax rates, from Krugman at the NY Times: "Meanwhile, wealthy Americans have seen a sharp drop in their tax burden. The top tax rate -- the income-tax rate on the highest bracket -- is now 35 percent, half what it was in the 1970's. With the exception of a brief period between 1988 and 1993, that's the lowest rate since 1932. Other taxes that, directly or indirectly, bear mainly on the very affluent have also been cut sharply. The effective tax rate on corporate profits has been cut in half since the 1960's. The 2001 tax cut phases out the inheritance tax, which is overwhelmingly a tax on the very wealthy: in 1999, only 2 percent of estates paid any tax, and half the tax was paid by only 3,300 estates worth more than $5 million. The 2003 tax act sharply cuts taxes on dividend income, another boon to the very well off. By the time the Bush tax cuts have taken full effect, people with really high incomes will face their lowest average tax rate since the Hoover administration. " This kind of thing is why I really don't worry that the top 1% pay 40% of all taxes. I worry more about the percentage paid by the bottom 1%, 10% and 20%.

Author

kate

Date

2004-02-09T11:32:43-06:00

ID

77585

Comment

Economy: This isa complex subject that none of us can even begin to do justice to. But here are basic points that I summarize as follows: it's the PERCENTAGE of the deficit and job loss numbers that are the most revealing. Deficit: There are two ways to look at this. Which measure do you think is the most relevant? I leave it to your judgement. With a $1/2 tril. deficit and a $10 Tril. GDP, then the deficit is 5% of total productivity. I can't vouch for the reliability of my following analogy, but I feel that this is no worse than you having a $50K per year income and having a $2,500 per year debt ... providing your income (i.e. your "gross individual product, if you will) rises faster than your debt. Likewise, least theoretically, if productivity grows faster than the debt, then that creates a bigger pool of taxable revenue that enables us to pay off that debt. I would think the figure deficit (or even debt) as a % of GDP is a good indicator of our long-run ability to pay off our debt and close the deficit. You can also look at it from this angle - deficit as a % of total government spending (or even total relevant government spending, whichever you prefer). A $1/2 trillion dollar deficit with a $2.5 trillion yearly budget (I could be wrong about the latter), that works out to a yearly deficit-to-yearly budget ratio of 20%. On the surface (and maybe not so surface either), this figure itself is something to be concerned about, for you are spending 1/5 more per year than you are taking in (i.e. the equivalent of borrowing $10,000 per year if you have a $50,000 per year salary). I doubt any of you will borrow that ratio per year outside a dire personal emergency (home mortgages are effectively in that range on a yearly basis, though you could also call "escaping homelessness" an emergency on some level). But, just as home mortgages almost always never have to be paid back in one year so it is with the national debt. The government does not have to repay the principle until the bond or other debt instrument (the usual way governments acquire extra cash) matures (which usually is anywhere from 90 days to 30 years, depending on the term of the debt instrument). What the government must do yearly is pay the interest on those bonds, etc. So let's look at how much interest Washington must pay next year on the $1/2 trillion it borrowed. I don't know about the current interest rates for various bonds and so forth, but let's assume the average rate overall is 4% or so $500 billion X .05 = $25 billion per year That's how much extra the Federal government must pay for several years for every $1/2 trillion it borrows. As for the total national debt, I will go by the Bureau of Public Debt's current figure as of Feb 5, 2004 (Bureau of Public Debt is a branch of the Treasury Dept) $7,009,333,811,289.69 Source: http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm $7.009 trillion X .05 = $350.45 billion in interest payments the government must pay per year. Assuming a $2.5 Trillion national budget, that means about 14% of our budget will go to pay off the iinterest. There are likely other factors I may have overlooked, and if so, I'm all ears. I only bring this up to give you another angle from which to think about this, and so will withhold comment. Unemployment: Similar story. According to a MoveOn commercial that didn't get aired, 3 million jobs were lost - the most since the great depression. Our population is more than double now what it was in 1930. Our current population is about 285 million. Assuming 1/2 of our people are in the labor force, that works out to 142.5 Million workers. 3 million is 2.1% of the labor force. What are the similar figures for 1930? A lot to think about, I know. But I think it highly importan to bring up these notions.

Author

Philip

Date

2004-02-09T12:00:53-06:00

ID

77586

Comment

Donna, I somehow had a sense it would descend to attack the messenger and not the message. I don't label D or "donkeys" as bad people. They are just wrong IMHO about a lot of things. Just my opinion. If you would like for me to not post, all you need to do is ask. Lest you think I am the only persone feeling this way, I did recieve an interesting email from a JFP blogger this morning. -- Just curious--I've seen a lot of folks with varying levels of conservative viewpoints get swallowed up in the back-and-forth over there. It really can be draining to comment with her (Ladd). She's getting less and less friendly to those viewpoints, it seems. I like to see alternative newspapers do well, too--but maybe with a little less condescension. :) -- Back to the issue, look at most of the alternative press outlets and even the candidates sites themselves. There is one message . . . beat Bush. That is the only thing holding the D party together. Even Kate said it in an earlier post.

Author

Alan

Date

2004-02-09T12:12:06-06:00

ID

77587

Comment

Thanks for the nubmers, Philip. Alan, I don't have the stats that Kate and Philip have, but I do know this: If the top 5% of our population holds 95% of our nation's assets, then damn skippy they should pay at least 40% of the tax burden, especially since they make their money by not paying employee benefits like health insurance and paid fmaily leave and by paying a far-less-than living wage. And since you seem to be experiencing some Reaganesque degenerative failure, Reagan's policies didn't work. That's why they call it "voodoo economics." Trickle down economics doesn't work, never has, never will, because after the ultrarich take (more than) their share, there's not much left to trickle down.

Author

Nia

Date

2004-02-09T12:16:00-06:00

ID

77588

Comment

"The top tax rate -- the income-tax rate on the highest bracket -- is now 35 percent, half what it was in the 1970's. With the exception of a brief period between 1988 and 1993, that's the lowest rate since 1932." The 1970s were also a period of strict government regulation and economic stagnation (remember the admittedly rhetorical "misery index"? inflation + unemployment) "The 2003 tax act sharply cuts taxes on dividend income, another boon to the very well off." A lot of that dividend income goes to older middle age people who have to live on that in retirement. Also, although it may not be the wisest financial move (though certainly not the worse, if you are willing to tolerate this level of risk), stashing money aside in a mutual fund is also a good way to acquire enough money to put a large down payment on your home, especially for working class people with frugal habits. Besides, I am queasy about "double taxation" (taxing dividends as earned yearly, plus taxing capital gains again when you sell the stock - or other financial instrument or real property) when current tax laws make debt more attractive (you can write off interest payments on your income taxes). I'm not saying capital gains should never be taxed, but having a tax structure that encourages debt is a pretty good way to encourage individual and business bankruptcy! Kate:"...I worry more about the percentage paid by the bottom 1%, 10% and 20%." On this much I will agree. However, I will say that eliminating double taxation (but not necessarly all cap gains taxes) for those with total liquid assets (defined by Generally Accepted Accounting Practices) of less than $1 Million in CURRENT purchasing power terms, especially for for people over 45, would be a good way to insure that the lower middle and upper lower (i.e. "working") classes can secure future well being in their "Golden Years".

Author

Philip

Date

2004-02-09T12:21:44-06:00

ID

77589

Comment

Speaking of double taxation, the impact of double taxation is more more honerous for the lower and middle classes than for the wealthy because it is a greater percentage of our meager by comparison incomes. Philip, you might want to double check this BEFORE you do this year's taxes, but I thought the only taxes you could right off were property taxes. You can't write off debt anymore or even taxes on student loans. That law was changed two, three years ago. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong before I do my taxes!

Author

Nia

Date

2004-02-09T12:28:32-06:00

ID

77590

Comment

As this has descended to an argument now about taxation, let me weigh in with a little common sense. Kate said it well in saying that the top marginal tax rate was now about half what it used to be (about 70% in the 70s). Reagan, Nia, took those shackles off and the economy went absolutely berzerko. It was at the time the greatest peace time expansion ever. If you give more resources to people with greater aptitude and drive, the economy goes up both short and long term (e.g. Reagan tax cut, Bush tax cut). If you penalize them, the economy suffers, plain and simple. Trickle down does work and here's why. If you get $.70 out of every additional dollar taken from you, there is very little incentive for the people who (1) have the aptitude and (2) have the drive to create wealth for both themselves and others. It is difficult if not impossible for someone to create wealth for themselves and not do it for other people. The more regressive the tax structure, the more that the rich stay richer, etc. By the way, Nia, of the ever villified rich in the US, over 80% are first generation rich. That means that they are not hieresses (and people who marry them, like Kerry). Many millionaires are people who have a family owned plumbing business and don't drive Lexuses. That is why the death tax, when they die is such a bad idea. It punishes families (and usually middle class families at that).

Author

Alan

Date

2004-02-09T12:39:01-06:00

ID

77591

Comment

Philip, thanks for the hard data. I had a feeling our resident Numbers Man would show up with good info for us all to ponder. Alan, please. You always come on here attacking the messinger, and belittling anyone else who doesn't agree with you. You're incredibly condescending every time you post ("student of economics"). That's why I'm not bothering to answer your specifics, and I shouldn't even be bothering to address these kinds of taunts, which are clearly designed to get the hair on the back of my neck up. You label, you stereotype, you talk down routinely, especially about liberals, progressives, Ds, donkeys, "alternative" media, etc. And when I've responded to you in the past with substantive information that challenges your arguments, you skate. You're not looking for dialogue. So why bother? To your anonymous e-mail correspondent, I apologize if I sound condescending when I respond to your taunts, or express my opinions, but I do it under my real name for anyone to see, for better or worse. I'd also suggest that some people label anything that doesn't reinforce their beliefs, or draws on information they're unaware of, "condescending," and there's only so much you can do about that. But we can all try to check our tendences to lump people into easy little boxes and call them uninformed names in order to dismiss them (which, by the way, doesn't work, except for anyone who already drinks your Koolaid). One final example of why I don't feel the need to engage you on the economics that you study so diligently. Your statement from above: I know Kerry et al will talk about "Mrs. Betty Jones in Pigsdale, Iowa, who had to pay her rent with credit cards last week because . . . ", but the truth is that is heartstring pulling crap because most people don't even know anyone like that. They just want to make you FEEL like things are bad. Whoa. Ouch. "Heartstring pulling crap"? "Most people don't even know people like that"? Can you come up with more elitist, condescending statements, Alan? More out of touch? More generalizing? *I* know people like that, and a lot of them. And the pool is growing under the economic policies you admire so much. And many, many people know that, whether or not they call themselves "Ds" or "donkeys," and a lot of them are looking for an "alternative" to Bush. Here's a letter *I* got last night from a man in Brandon: "Donna ... You have total agreement that we cannot have any more Bush -- Mr. Bush needs to be the first one in line at the unemployment office in January 2005 in Texas. To quote Mr. Kerry, 'Like father, like son. One term and you're done.' Thank you from all blue collar workers." Just a different perspective from someone who might know someone using their credit cards to pay rent. As for your catching the Democrats in their efforts to "beat Bush," you tickle me. You're actually on here complaining that the Dems during a primary season in an election year are trying to beat the Republican incumbent??? I don't even know how to respond to that, er, revelation. What are they supposed to be doing? I'd even go out on a limb and wager that next time there's a Democrat in office that the "elephants" might spend a little effort trying to beat him/her as well. I could be wrong. OK, I'm done. Still on deadline, and I really feel like we're beating a dead donkey, or elephant, here. And I sincerely apologize to anyone reading for my irritation and condescension and, I admit, sarcasm. I simply need to ignore posts such as these designed to incite, and will try to do that in the future. Back to work.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-02-09T12:41:23-06:00

ID

77592

Comment

Alan, we cross-posted, so I'll add one more thing in response to your latest one about the discussion "desending" to taxation (I'm confused; I thought that was the conversation you were trying to have? Why is that descending?). Anyway, I certainly am no student of economics, but one of the big disconnects I see here is philosophical. Your "common sense" (not condescending, right?) isn't commonly accepted as common sense among everyone, to put it mildly. You seem a confirmed proponent of regressive taxation and trickle-down Reaganomics, and seem to see benefits in what some others see as negative (or even horrifying) outcomes of voodoo economics. And you say clearly above that you don't believe that there are people who are very bad off as a result (then or now). That being the case, I don't see much room for dialogue with you about it. You've clearly made up your mind about it, and find your own arguments convincing and sound, even if others of us do not. It's my turn to skate. There's a certain blasted "alternative" that goes to bed tonight. ;-)

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-02-09T12:56:10-06:00

ID

77593

Comment

One point on millionaires. I'm pretty sure, but correct me if I'm wrong (Philip? I'll check data later), but being a millionaire no longer puts one in the top 10% of the wealthiest americans. The people with the *real* money are still inheriting it. And, it was me who started the slide into tax policies. Because, while I'm currently theorizing that economies are cyclical, and things go up and down regardless of who's in power, I think that the policies of those in power have a great deal of impact on who gets the benefit, from both economic expansion and contraction.

Author

kate

Date

2004-02-09T13:04:24-06:00

ID

77594

Comment

There is a lot of data here that is relevant to the discussion. It further backs up my point that millionaires carry about 40% of the load and that the top 20% of wage earners carry 81.4% of the federal tax burden. If that is somehow fair, I must be on the wrong planet. Kate, by the way, the share of fed taxes paid by the bottom 20% of wage earners is -3.7%. That's right, they not only don't pay, they get tax credits back off the top. And most millionaires do not inherit their wealth. In the words of the late John Houseman, THEY EARN IT. They don't steal it. THEY EAAAAAAAARRRRRN IT. More info. Donna, honestly, I think I have added a lot to the discussion. I have not called anyone out or called anyone names. However, I do call 'em as I see 'em, but I always have reasons and hard data to back it up. Challenge me on that anytime. And for the most part, everyone, with the exception of you has returned the favor. I would challenge you to go back through the string. I am opinionated and, unfortunately, I disagree with you and a lot of the people here on things, but I have not been condescending or rude to any poster, though I have been direct and often on the other side. It seems not only on this string, but on the few others I have participated in, that when it hits a little close to home, people who posit themselves as open-minded show that they are often the antithesis of that. I am certainly one to engage in the larger debates. If you want people to have open and honest discourse, then I would just as soon have you attack the message and not the messenger. If I am wrong, show me (factually - something you have done nowhere in this string). It seems when that is not feasible (or possible), I get the hammer. If you don't want to post, just let me know and I won't waste my time.

Author

Alan

Date

2004-02-09T15:59:17-06:00

ID

77595

Comment

Kate, The days of the aura surrounding the word "millionaire" are definitely numbered, not the least of which is because of inflation. As a good rule of thumb, a constant 3% inflation rate (which is pretty damn good historically) devalues the dollar by 1/4 every 10 years (this can be checked by using the simplest of algebra - namely powers) [(1+i)^Y] X $P = $N@Y i= yearly inflation rate expressed as a decimal Y = # of years into the future $P = Present dollars $N@Y = Nominal (straight number) dollars required to have $P's purchasing power in Year Y (1.03^10) X $100 = $134.39 This means something that costs $100 today will cost $134.40 in 2014. To find out how much that same thing will cost in 2104, simply do this (1.03^100) X $100 = $1,921.86 So as you can see, in 100 years, people will have to earn 20 times as much money (nominally) as we do in order to have the same standard of living we enjoy today. This means in 100 years millionaire (by net assets, not by income) will truly be a yawner of a term, since that is today's equivalent of merely $50,000. Heck, even "billionaire" will lose a lot of its elitist factor, since that will be only our equivalent of $50 million (though obviously they will still be very much in the "wealthy" category). So, if somebody tells you that your grandchildren will be millionaires one day, and say it with a gleam in their eye --- you now know what to think

Author

Philip

Date

2004-02-09T16:31:28-06:00

ID

77596

Comment

Alan, do you have handy any info on what % of *income* the top 20% earns? And, what % of total wealth in the country those people have? I'm trying not to get obsessive about this, quit my job, and go do research on this. I'll say it again - I think it's totally right (not sure if it's 'fair' or not) for people with excess money to pay lots and lots in taxes. I'd really rather be in the top 20% wage earners, than the bottom 20%, no matter what the tax burden. Also, the charts for income are very different from total wealth. There may be mobility in income, especially in the late 90s when you add in capital gains from stock sales. But, my sense (and I'll have to dig up numbers tonight) is that in terms of overall wealth, not so much. Particularly when you start to aggregate holdings of people like DuPonts, Rockefellars, etc. From what I've seen, the old families still dominate in terms of wealth.

Author

kate

Date

2004-02-09T16:39:30-06:00

ID

77597

Comment

Alan, you're not on the wrong planet, you're just not thinking on this one. All that common sense you have should inform you that if the bottom 20% of our population doesn't make enough money to support itself (you have to make less than $12,000 a year to avoid income taxes) then they can hardly be expected to make ends meet if they also have to pay income taxes. And what exactly are you arguing? That the middle class is overtaxed? No argument there. That's what everyone else here is saying. And you don't seem to get this either, but having a net worth of $1 million doesn't qualify you for "wealthy' status. That merely puts you in the upper tier of the middle class income bracket. There was a great editorial several months ago in a TN paper (sorry can't remember which one) about how most Southern and Midwestern voters vote their "economic aspiration." Most of them fit solidly into the LOWER middle class (total annual household income of less than $125,000 year), but these misinformed people actually think they're upper middle class or even wealthy. So they get pissed when they hear about wealthy people paying 40% of the tax burden. And they get excited when they hear about tax cuts for the wealthy even though those policies work against them. (I'll try to find that editorial.) Go back and do the math, Alan. So what if the wealthiest 5% of our population pay 40% of the tax burden? They've got 95% of the wealth and they didn't EARN it. they make it off the backs of the poorly paid, the unpaid, and those lacking basic social services like healthcare. Unless your income is more than $125,000, you and people like me pay way more than our fair share of everything. We pay for the bonds that enable the uberrich to build stadiums for the sports teams they own. And for our trouble, they charge outrageous ticket prices so that only corporate big-wigs can afford to attend games. Banks spread their operating costs over the poorest of their customers (me and you) so that they can give the services for which we're overcharged to rich folks for free.

Author

Nia

Date

2004-02-09T17:00:58-06:00

ID

77598

Comment

Kate, income was what was on that link. Wealth is a different link, but from what I have read, it is surprisingly close to income in statistical correlation. We will just have to agree to disagree on people with "excess money" needing to pay more in taxes. I am an entrepreneur and have been flat busted. My father is an entreprenuer and has been flat busted. When you do come out of it, all of the risk you take needs to be rewarded and it ain't with "excess money". The virtually unlimited profit incentive in our country is what has marked the upward surge of technology and quality of life worldwide. Those that do the best, make the most. Be it in sports, business or entertainment. That is why our country invents more and excels more is because we are incented more. Even our poor have it better than say the truly poor in third world countries. You want to see regression in technology, performance, etc.? All you have to do is remove the profit incentive and watch it die on the vine.

Author

Alan

Date

2004-02-09T17:03:53-06:00

ID

77599

Comment

Alan, you're mixing corporate taxes with individual taxes in this last one. I don't think anyone's advocating taxing small businesses/entrepreneurs excessively. And, I'd argue with "those that do the best, make the most." Because, well, teachers don't make squat. And the best technology is not destined to win, with MSFT as the poster child for that. I still say, that individuals with incomes in the top 10% should expect to pay a whole bunch in taxes, and that makes them better off than anyone in the bottom 10%. And - most people in that income bracket can afford tax attorneys and accountants to help them avoid lots of those taxes.

Author

kate

Date

2004-02-09T17:15:22-06:00

ID

77600

Comment

I have not called anyone out or called anyone names. Alan, in your first posting above, you called Kerry a "knucklehead"! That's your prerogative, but I can only imagine the outcry by our Republican posters if Bush critics here started calling Bush easy names like that (and some may well have in the past). It's one thing to question politics; reducing your opponent to "knucklehead" seems counter-productive at best. (Again, I don't Kerry, either, at least not yet, but "knucklehead" is knucklehead.) No one is saying you can't express your opinion here, or contribute in a discussion because you might not agree with another poster. Stimulating conversations are good for everyone, and I've never asked anyone to leave this site, or blocked them, because of their opinions or dissent (only because they routinely hurled ad hominem attacks or spammed site members with fake identities). What I've objected to with your postings from the beginning in my comments back to you is that you frequently engage in that annoying, and in my view disingenuous, habit of trying to distill all opinion that doesn't match yours into a single dismissive category (composition fallacy, I think they call it). You've done it in one way or another every time you've surfaced here over the months, such as from above: I know there is a lot of "beat Bush at all costs" sentiments in the "alternative" political community. What does that add to your point? To me, it just looks like you have a bone to pick, instead of a valid point to make, and dilutes your credibility. Then, if I try to ignore your taunts or am not compelled enough by your comments to respond, you ask why I haven't responded to you! I then explain why I'm not compelled by your argumentation strategies and tendencies to stereotype, and then you complain that I'm trying to shut you up. It's a ludicrous circle that is a big waste of time. I will fully admit, though, that I am probably a bit grumpy with you and some of your close friends (who, incidentally, are the ones who tend to try this composition strategy here; I remember responding to one and being accusing of being a brow-beating liberal woman because I stated my opinion.). You're one of a very small handful of people who seem to show up here just to try to put other people in boxes, even though there are people blogging on this site with ideas on various issues all along the spectrum. It's very annoying and, although I have no reason or desire to ask you to leave, I remind you that speech flows two ways, and I will sometimes respond to that kind of unfair lumping of people into easy categories. For instance, I've said many times that I am not a Democrat, and I have criticized Dems many times on this site as have many other bloggers, but you want to stick a large scarlet D to my forehead. Sigh.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-02-09T17:33:44-06:00

ID

77601

Comment

Kate, again, we will agree to disagree. While I hold cops and teachers in the highest esteem, there are a ton of them. AND there are a ton of people who have the qualifications to do those jobs (some not even 4 year degrees). Supply and demand says if there is a lot of people who can/will, salaries are reflective accordingly. If not, they would be paid more. A brain surgeon or someone who can bat .300 and hit 40 home runs on the other hand is in high demand and short supply. Hence the high salary. That is the economic value that the market (not some arbitrary force) places on those services. The issue of what seems right is noble (and I do sympathize with it), but irrelevant. The main reason is that if you have arbiters or controls on that, you pretty much have socialism (e.g. France). MSFT may not be the "better" product from a technical perspective, but the outmarketing the you know what out of Apple and won the race and hence are the standard. MSFT and Apple competed - MSFT won. To the victor goes the spoils, etc. But the great thing in our economy is that you as a consumer, with your dollar votes, can still choose Apple and everything is cool. An interesting exercise on the tax question is to replace the words "tax rate" with "redistribution". In other words, he is in the 39.6% redistribution bracket. It is much more illustrative of the actual process. If we called it that, there would probably be less of it.

Author

Alan

Date

2004-02-09T17:35:22-06:00

ID

77602

Comment

Alan, you're mixing corporate taxes with individual taxes in this last one. I don't think anyone's advocating taxing small businesses/entrepreneurs excessively. I noticed that, too, Kate. Alan, there are some major proponents of small business and actual free enterprise blogging on this site. You suddenly switched your argument mid-stream, and I'm having a hard time following your point. As for the most wealthy being "over"-taxed, let me put it this way. When those folks, and their odd bedfellows in the middle- and small-business classes, are ready to support doing away with the very wealthy's tax and regulatory breaks, corporate welfare and other unfair shortcuts to gathering and stockpiling wealth, on the backs of folks who don't share their good fortune, I'll start listening, at least, to the idea of a flatter tax rate. Until that point, though, I will stick to the very intelligent and far-reaching idea of progressive taxation. That trickle-down dogma ain't huntin' over here.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-02-09T17:38:59-06:00

ID

77603

Comment

An interesting exercise on the tax question is to replace the words "tax rate" with "redistribution". Alan, what's next? Replacing the word "Democrat" or "progressive" or "alternative" with "Communist"? That dogma don't hunt, either. Please.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-02-09T17:40:56-06:00

ID

77604

Comment

Alan, when you can convince me that there are no arbiters in our economy at all, that it's truly laissez faire, then your argument makes more sense. As it stands now, there's plenty of influence by the wealthy in politics, plenty of corporate subsidy and corporate bail out (for example, the airline industry in the past couple of years). That's 'redistribution' as well. And, I thought I had heard that MS was having trouble finding qualified police officers AND teachers. I think excellent teachers and police officers are way more rare than your average corporate officer. Also, since teachers and police officers support the public good, don't you think it behooves us, as a society, to pay them more, to value them more? Personally, given what we pay both those jobs, I'm surprise anyone signs up for them. It bugs me when people say that what's 'right' isn't 'relevant.' Since when?

Author

kate

Date

2004-02-09T17:51:06-06:00

ID

77605

Comment

Also, since teachers and police officers support the public good, don't you think it behooves us, as a society, to pay them more, to value them more? Personally, given what we pay both those jobs, I'm surprise anyone signs up for them. And don't forget, Kate, the political burden and blame that are then piled on both teachers and police officers regardless of what kind of job they're doing. Between that and pay, it is a wonder anyone will do those jobs.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-02-09T17:55:34-06:00

ID

77606

Comment

actually, I'd kind of like it if we changed 'taxes' to 'redistribution.' I think we've lost sight of what taxes are for, and people have such knee jerk reactions to the word, it'd be nice to change it for a while. Plus, I don't mind redistributing some of my wealth. Those to whom much is given, much is expected, and all that stuff. I do wish the gov't were better at managing my money, but until we get a better system in place, yay taxes! What's the alternative? Deregulation worked awfully well in California, for example. I just don't think taxes are evil, in and of themselves.

Author

kate

Date

2004-02-09T17:56:47-06:00

ID

77607

Comment

"The virtually unlimited profit incentive in our country is what has marked the upward surge of technology and quality of life worldwide." Although obviously free enterprise is an important factor contributing to the growth of a healthy economy and culture, it's not solely responsible for the prosperity of the United States. Access to a solid, basic education for most US citizens is probably the single largest factor. No other country offers the kind of basic education to almost anyone, which is why it's so sad that we're losing that advantage. (When other country's claim to be ahead of the US in terms of their math scores and such, it's often because they DON"T COUNT many of the poorest performing students. We count everyone, which is why our average scores are lower.) Then there's equal rights for women and people of color so that they can contribute their talents and strengths. And although we've never been a classless society, we're getting farther away from that ideal, not closer to it.

Author

Nia

Date

2004-02-09T18:11:46-06:00

ID

77608

Comment

Kate, if you believe that we "collectively" are not being taxed enough, there is certainly nothing stopping you or anyone else from adding more to your tax return and sending more in. I, for one, feel like I gave at the office. I think we are WAY overtaxed. WAY WAY overtaxed. Also, if you believe to whom much is given, much is expected, then it must logically follow that those who are given (or get to keep) more will produce more. You are right on that one. All of this is contra to Nia, who (no offense) seems to think everyone who is rich is either a crook or a trust fund baby. They've got 95% of the wealth and they didn't EARN it. they make it off the backs of the poorly paid, the unpaid, and those lacking basic social services like healthcare. I could name you a thousand CEOs (Gates for one), that has made money and had thousands of people who work for him made millions. This, and I don't think I am stretching given the tenor of the last 1/2 dozen posts, is pure class envy venom. Look at folks like the Irbys here in Jackson. Pillars. Do great things in the community. Made lots of money. Spew that screw the rich stuff on them. The truth is, much to the dismay of the folks here is that you can make money and do it right. Most of the people that don't wound up sued or in jail. IMHO it is not worth the risk. Taxes are inevitably part of wealth, but ask your favorite pillar of community what the first thing that goes when taxes go up. It is giving, philanthropy and the arts. You don't believe that, ask someone whose job it is to raise money in a down economic cycle.

Author

Alan

Date

2004-02-09T18:15:37-06:00

ID

77609

Comment

Oh, I don't think taxes are evil, either. And I see your point, Kate, but that word has been so bastardized and politicized, especially by past generations driven by racism as much as anything, that I can't even imagine anyone taking it back in an effective, honest way! I suspect that most people who hear "redistribution" think "communism," a concept about as realistic as actual laissez-faire economics. My point, of course, is that the answer to an effective society that provides equal and fair opportunities to its own, all of its own, is somewhere between those two extremes, as are all intelligent solutions, I believe. And I have no problem participating in making that happy medium happen, by paying taxes, civic participation, voting, public dialogue and debate, and through other means. And should I ever ascend to one of those income categories y'all are arguing over -- chortle! -- I certainly am willing to pay a larger proportion of my income out in taxes as a way to give back to society, and ensure that it continues to be a place conducive to enlightenment, safety, opportunity and actual free enterprise. That strikes me as a no-brainer, but admittedly I'm not one who thinks that the accumulation of massive wealth is a primary, or very exciting, goal in life. I think life is much bigger than that, and frankly the very wealthy people I've met just seem obsessed with protecting their wealth rather than living life. (No, Alan, that doesn't mean I believe in a vow of poverty; this isn't an either-or proposition. Most things aren't.)

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-02-09T18:20:40-06:00

ID

77610

Comment

pure class envy venom. Alan, you don't listen. You're hearing what you want to hear. My first instinct was correct. See ya.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-02-09T18:23:20-06:00

ID

77611

Comment

Alan, you're making assumptions about me and my tax bracket, when you say I'm exhibiting class envy venom. And, I do think people can make money the 'right way.' I'm missing the logic in "what's the first thing to go when taxes go up". You then say it's "in a down economic cycle." I don't think that raises in taxes = down economic cycle. Wouldn't giving go up in high tax eras, so that you get more of a tax break? Alan, while I admit that not all rich people are evil, do you admit that they are not all 'pillars of the community?' No where have I said that wealth is bad. Nor has anyone on this thread. And, I know some fairly wealthy folk who would argue that it is their duty to give more, to be 'pillars', as you point out - which is the whole point I've been trying to make. I'm not sure why you're so angry in that last paragraph.

Author

kate

Date

2004-02-09T18:28:45-06:00

ID

77612

Comment

OK, one more : GATES?!?!? Alan, are you trying to say that Mr. Gates and the millionaires around him made their moola with no help from the government, from tax help to regulatory favors? Or from all the contract workers that sued Microsoft for ignoring labor laws? I would suggest that Mr. Gates, and his long-time tether to the federal government, is a very poor way to make your point.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-02-09T18:37:33-06:00

ID

77613

Comment

Alan, you're putting words in my mouth here: "Also, if you believe to whom much is given, much is expected, then it must logically follow that those who are given (or get to keep) more will produce more. You are right on that one. " personally, I don't believe that's a logical conclusion. yeah, jobs are created when companies are successful. But, in the past 20 years, the ratio of CEO pay to average worker pay has jumped dramatically, and is not tied to any correlating increase in profits or productivity or anything. I'll go look up the figures in Wealth and Democracy after supper.

Author

kate

Date

2004-02-09T18:37:55-06:00

ID

77614

Comment

Alan, in case you didn't catch this earlier, Kate and I are actually two different people who do not share a brain. Hence we are capable of (and often do have) different opinions on issues. And I'm sure we disagree in the belief that our tax structure is out ofwhack. That said, I do not believe that everyone who is rich is a crook. Some of my best friends are wealthy, and none of them are crooks. The concept of responsible wealth could use better PR. However, the uberrich in the US ARE trust fund babies. You're still not getting that you have to be really, really phat on cash to be rich in this country. Employing the logic you used with Kate, any rich person who rails against welfare and unfair taxation can stop accepting corporate welfare and start paying banking and ATM fees at any time. We were talking about tax laws, specifically tax laws (and business practices) that favor rich folks and unfairly burden the not-so-rich. BTW, you shouldn't make assumptions about other people's net worth. I don't have class envy; I actually think that I pay an appropriate amount of taxes and wouldn't balk at paying higher taxes if I thought they were being used responsibly--for social services for those who don't have, for healthcare, for education. I don't mind sharing what I have with those who don't have. I DO mind though if my tax money is used to provide welfare for people who have even more than I have or to fund ill-conceived wars.

Author

Nia

Date

2004-02-09T18:39:44-06:00

ID

77615

Comment

I see no evidence of logic there, either.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-02-09T18:39:54-06:00

ID

77616

Comment

And wasn't Bill Gates one of those people who protested Bush's tax cuts? Anyone remember that, a few months ago? A bunch of rich folk telling the feds that they really didn't need to cuts? Or am I hallucinating...

Author

kate

Date

2004-02-09T18:40:29-06:00

ID

77617

Comment

I was wrong. It's Bill Gates, Sr., and it was only on the estate tax repeal. http://www.ufenet.org/press/2001/rejecttherebate_pa.html Wrong, but not totally hallucinating, thank goodnes.

Author

kate

Date

2004-02-09T18:45:20-06:00

ID

77618

Comment

Oops! I meant to say that I'm NOT sure we (Kate and I) disagree in the belief that our tax structure is out of whack. Those rich folks telling Bush they don't need the tax cuts was the group Responsible Wealth. Some of those folks are actually quite nice, and none of the ones I know are crooks! :-) Here's a link to their Website: http://www.responsiblewealth.org/aboutrw/index.html

Author

Nia

Date

2004-02-09T18:49:59-06:00

ID

77619

Comment

Nia, have you looked in the mirror lately? Folks with not-Alan thoughts are just alike and have a big red D (or, it is A; I lose track) stamped on our foreheads. We think with one mind, same ideas, no original thoughts. We hate rich people and envy classy folks and believe we should all live in communes and take turns carrying water from the well. We carry the burden for all not-Alan thinkers who have come before, or will come sometime in the future. We are doomed to a life of envy and misery. Personally, if I suffered from class envy, I'd a probably stayed in law school. I could have at least been a Platinum member of the meritocracy. ;-) I am though, admittedly, suffering from a severe bout of sarcasm, and I'm about to have to fire myself if I don't get back to work. I'm loggin' out RIGHT NOW, damn it. Yell at me, sisters-in-every-single-conceivable-thought, should I post again in the next coupla hours.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-02-09T18:50:04-06:00

ID

77620

Comment

Bwahahaha, that was funny, Donna! I guess I should check the mirror 'cause I coulda' sworn that Kate and I look nothing alike [she's got the curves I wish I had! :-) ] I don't have a letter of authorization that allows me to fire the goddess--even if you post when you're supposed to be doing something else, but Kate might. Sister Kate?

Author

Nia

Date

2004-02-09T19:01:56-06:00

ID

77621

Comment

All, it seems I touched a nerve. However, the message about soaking the rich was coming through loud and clear.

Author

Alan

Date

2004-02-09T19:30:45-06:00

ID

77622

Comment

As for net worth, this is quite limited, but it does give us clues as to how older Americans stand. See page 16 ñ 17 for charts for Median Net Worth by Age of Household and by Educational Attainment for People 65 and Older. BTW, the highest ranking group in the chart was for People 65 and older with ìSome College or Moreî (not surprisingly) ñ their median net worth was $300,000 in 1999 in 1999 dollars. http://www.agingstats.gov/chartbook2000/OlderAmericans2000.pdf Something a little more revealing from the Social Quantitative Research Lab at The Northern Illinois University, although itís a hell of a lot of reading http://www.socqrl.niu.edu/FYI/POVERTY.html The somewhat revealing stuff is at http://www.socqrl.niu.edu/FYI/POVERTY.html#LOTTERY,%20NOT%20SAVING,%20SEEN%20AS%20THE%20TICKET%20TO Sorry that the data isnít any better, but recent stats on Median Net Worth are very difficult to find.

Author

Philip

Date

2004-02-09T20:14:35-06:00

ID

77623

Comment

Alan, there's a difference between wanting to soak the rich, and "class envy venom." At least for me. I don't feel any great anger towards the very rich. I just think they need to be "pillars of society", as you put it. Both via charitable donations AND tax law.

Author

kate

Date

2004-02-09T21:08:12-06:00

ID

77624

Comment

Alan, I deleted my comments about your blog and our exchange about it. I realize that I personally offended you although that wasn't my intention, but there's no reason to leave that hanging out on the blog for misinterpretation. Besides, that aside got in the way of the conversation at hand, and I apologize to the others for taking the thread OT. I think the thread as it is now can lead to more dynamic conversation about tax law for anyone who wishes to partake. ;-)

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-02-10T00:38:43-06:00

ID

77625

Comment

I want to add a few things to the tax discussion. I went and looked at Alan's link, and I noticed that there's a little more to it than at first glance. Check our this part:[quote]Q: What percentage of taxes are paid by the wealthiest 5% of Americans? A: The wealthiest 5 percent have 59% of the wealth and pay 38.4 percent of federal taxes. The wealthiest 1 percent have over 38 percent of the wealth and pay 24.8 percent of federal taxes. These households have an average wealth of $10.2 million and pay only 3.5 percent of their wealth in taxes. By way of comparison, the bottom 40 percent of taxpayers have an average net wealth of $1,100 and pay 163 percent of their net wealth in taxes.[/quote]Doesn't this really cut to the heart of the discussion? A lot of people talk about fairness in taxation. But the fact is, that *as a percentage of their wealth* people with considerable means pay considerably less in taxes. The discussion on that site seems limited to Federal taxes, but, since state and local taxes are almost always more regressive than Federal taxes, we end up with the poor paying an extrodinary percentage of their wealth in taxes, with the "rich" paying considerably less. I think that's why there's a fundamental -- and legitimate -- difference of opinion in the way people think about taxation. But I also think it speaks to why it's irrelevant to say "the top 5% pay 40% of taxes" and call it unfair. If they have 60% of the wealth, then they should pay 60% of taxes. Those who argue against this are arguing that *because* they're "successful," the wealthy should pay a *smaller* percentage of their wealth in taxes. Now, me personally, I've been smacked around good by taxation my entire career since I've made most of my money as a freelance contractor -- meaning I pay Self Employment Tax. In good years, that means a top marginal rate that pushes 50%; at that level, I've realized that it's rarely worth it to burn the midnight oil much once I reach the bracket, because I end up working too hard for that last mile considering how much I get from it. (And don't get me started on what it's like to have a good year in New York.) So, I can see some logic there in the "my taxes feel unfair" camp. But at the same time, I think we need to take a serious look at our priorities in this country. We need roads. We need schools. We need reasonably priced healthcare, clean water, a healthy environment, efficient and cheap power and, yes, we need to be creating good-paying jobs that give people a decent chance to stop paying rent on credit cards (or buying groceries or gas or whatever they do when the paycheck dries up) and start paying off those credit cards. I think cutting taxes on wealth and tossing another $3 billion into the national debt was a mistake. We already spend about half the Pentagon's budget each year just servicing debt, and that debt is owned increasingly by foreign interests. If interest rates go up much -- which is likely to happen with the government such a heavy borrower -- debt service could eclipse the Pentagon budget or the Social Security budget this decade. The more debt we have, the more we tie our government's budget to the interest rate, which won't stay down forever. By drastically cutting revenues from slow-moving money like estates and investment wealth -- instead of targeting taxpayers who would immediately consume more with the dollars they got back -- Bush took a lot of money out of the government's coffers only to borrow it again, so that a chunk went right back into T-bills. Now the government is paying interest on the money it returned to wealthy interests. Ideology trumps logic, perhaps? The next paragraph from the Facts About Taxes Web site is: "If all taxpayers paid the same 10.5 percent of their wealth in taxes as median income families pay, the taxes of the lowest 40 percent would be cut by 94 percent while the taxes of the wealthiest would triple." Hmm. A flat tax? Hey...let's think outside the box on this. Maybe whats-his-name from California...Jerry Brown....was right. (I don't remember his exact proposal.) I like the idea of the IRS shrinking, the bureaucracy spinning a bit more freely and us focusing on improving the infrastructure of this country. Would a flat tax on *wealth* be more fair? Everyone paying 10% of their wealth in taxes. (Hint: Under the new system, the top 5% would pay 60% of taxes, instead of 40%, because they have 60% of wealth.) Think about it -- a tax system that makes it easy to move from lower to middle and middle to upper economic classes. Once you get to upper...maybe things slow down a bit, since you're paying your fair share in taxes. And, one other note...it's historically extrodinary for us to see the GDP move the way it is without considerable job growth. Where are the jobs? How does our economy grow without jobs? Productivity per employee isn't telling the whole story. The problem appears to be that our companies aren't hiring domestically, but rather outsourcing. There's a huge boom in exporting partial goods for finishing in other countries and then re-importing -- using pools of low-cost labor in countries with lower standards of living to assemble our goods, even high tech, and send them back to us. That helps the stock market, sure. But does it help the country?

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2004-02-10T01:50:49-06:00

ID

77626

Comment

The NY Times today on Bush's tax cuts and economic policies: Mr. Bush would have us believe that he was compelled by sluggish economic times to cut taxes. When his interviewer, Tim Russert, referred to a devastating chart showing the economy's decline in the last three years and asked Mr. Bush why he should be re-elected, he answered, "Because I have been the president during a time of tremendous stress on our economy, and made the decisions necessary to lead that would enhance recovery." He called his tax cuts an "economic stimulus plan." This would make for a stirring tale of a president responding firmly to a national emergency, if only the president's supposed stimulus plan had been just that. It wasn't. His ambitious back-loaded tax cuts were unveiled during the last campaign, in the heady days of 1999, when the federal government was projected to amass trillions in surpluses in the next decade. Members of the Bush team drew up the tax cuts essentially as a rebate to the affluent for the excess money they said Washington had been taking. They stuck to the game plan even after it was clear that the rosy revenue projections would not hold up in the face of a wilting stock market. Instead of altering its plan to conform to changing facts, the White House simply altered its rationale for the tax cuts. The supposedly affordable luxury of a handout to the wealthy over the next decade was relabeled, improbably enough, as a short-term stimulus package. Mr. Bush disregarded the sound advice of Paul O'Neill, his first Treasury secretary, and Alan Greenspan, who said future tax cuts should be conditioned on the availability of surpluses. Read the editorial It doesn't sound like Bush helped himself a helluva lot with that Meet the Press interview, huh?

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-02-10T05:25:20-06:00

ID

77627

Comment

I think the other issue here is that many folks (like Alan, I'm guessing from his posts, but Alan, correct me if I'm wrong) view taxes as an onerous burden, almost a punishment. Hence the assumption of venomous class envy. Whereas I view taxes as the price I pay for roads and schools and police and so forth. A duty, a necessary cost. And yes, I think "the gov't" could spend my money a little more wisely - but until we come up with a better system, I'm okay with paying taxes.

Author

kate

Date

2004-02-10T10:56:26-06:00

ID

77628

Comment

Todd's point is dead on. Billionaire Warren Buffet also makes it clear in this op-ed piece from last spring. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A13113-2003May19¬Found=true Shortly after this, Congress changed the schedule of taxation for dividends. Unfortunately, they didn't just trash the whole idea.

Author

Nia

Date

2004-02-10T11:18:07-06:00

ID

77629

Comment

A couple of statistics, from Kevin Phillips "Wealth and Democracy". page 153: "The ratio of the pay of corporate CEOs to the hourly wages of production workers soared from 93 times that of workers in 1988 to 419 in 1999. ... Corporate profits, by contrast, rose on 108 percent." He also writes on the same page that: "Going back to the late 1960s, the pay of corporate CEOs had been only 25 times that of hourly production workers. Then in the mid-eighties, as Chart 3.22 shows, CEO compensation decoupled from its old relationships and opened up a yawning gap. Between 1981 and 1989 the ten biggest corporate CEO compensation packages increased 500 to 700 percent..." There's also chart on page 124 shows the US with the widest gap between rich and poor. Data is from the World Bank, 1996. The top 20% in the US make 11x more than the bottom 20%. In the UK the difference is 9.6, in France and Canada 7.1, Germany 5.8, Belgium 4.6 and Japan 4.3. There's also the chart on page 129, with data from the Congressional Budget Office, which shows changes in income. In 1977, the bottom 20% received 5.7% of all income. in 1999, dropped to 5.2% Next lowest 20% went from 11.5% in 1977 to 9.7% Middle went from 16.4% to 14.7% Next highest 20% went from 22.8 to 21.3% The top 20% went from 44.2% to 50.4% of all income. The top 1% went from 7.3% to 12.9% of all income from 1977 to 1999. So, from 1977 to 1999, the ONLY group that made gains (as measured by % of all income) was the to 20%. Everybody else's piece of the pie shrank. The book is 400+ pages, with a chart and/or graph on pretty much every page, so if anyone is interested in this kind of stuff, it's a great book to have around.

Author

kate

Date

2004-02-11T11:29:09-06:00

ID

77630

Comment

Over at the NY Times, Krugman weighs in on the jobs thing. He takes a look at the statistics that are bandied about, and explains part of my own uneasiness about this 'recovery.' "One last statistic ó not about jobs, but about wages. Since the last quarter of 2001, real G.D.P. has risen 7.2 percent. But wage and salary income, after adjusting for inflation, is up only 0.6 percent. This matches what the employer survey is telling us: America's workers have seen very little benefit from this recovery."

Author

kate

Date

2004-02-11T12:06:14-06:00

ID

77631

Comment

Don't miss this Heritage report that blasts Bush's spending spree: Federal spending has grown twice as fast under President Bush than under President Clinton. Federal spending reached $2.157 trillion in 2003, with a budget deficit of $374 billion. In 2003, inflation-adjusted federal spending topped $20,000 per household for the first time since World War II. Overall for 2003, the federal government spent $20,300 per household, taxed $16,780 per household, and ran a budget deficit of $3,520 per household. The 2004 Budget Debate Will the Budget Deficit Fix Itself? Balanced budgets from 1998 through 2001 resulted from: 1) the highest tax revenues in decades; 2) the lowest defense spending in decades; and 3) legislative gridlock that doomed most new spending initiatives. None of these factors exist today. Absent reform, budget deficits will remain around $500 billion through the decade. At that point, the retiring baby boomers will collide with Social Security and Medicare to produce a sea of red ink. Recent tax rate reductions increased incentives to work, save, and invest and will consequently promote economic growth and produce new tax revenues. However, it is unrealistic to assume these supply-side tax revenues will close a $500 billion budget deficit. Serious spending cuts must be made." Link to the Heritage report for lots more, including colorful graphs showing what's actually happening with Bush's budget.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-02-11T22:27:12-06:00

ID

77632

Comment

This part of that Heritage report is interesting: "Nowhere to Cut? The $80 billion corporate welfare budget remains sacrosanct. Programs like the Advanced Technology Program (ATP) tax working Americans to subsidize Fortune 500 companies. The number of pork projects has quintupled since 1998 to 10,000. Current projects include $725,000 for the Please Touch Museum, $200,000 for the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame, and $150,000 to construct a single traffic light in Briarcliff Manor, NY. Bought and sold by lobbyists, these pork projects now cost $23 billion per year. The federal governmentís own auditors have identified hundreds of billions of dollars in waste, fraud, and abuse. Congress has steadfastly refused to implement the auditorsí recommended reforms to save taxpayer dollars. The U.S. Treasury cannot account for $17 billion that was spent in 2001. The federal government still runs many of the same outdated and obsolete programs from the 1800s and early 1900s, such as the Geological Survey and the Rural Utilities Service. Out of thousands of federal programs, only one notable program has been eliminated since President Bush took office (the 2002 termination of HUDís drug elimination grants for low-income housing)."

Author

kate

Date

2004-02-12T10:59:05-06:00

ID

77633

Comment

That's just sickening. I might lose my breakfast over those stats.

Author

Nia

Date

2004-02-12T11:49:32-06:00

ID

77634

Comment

one man's pork is another's vital economic devlopment project... Heritage, eh? I'm gonna have to to find cites for my points in the Nation or Teh American Prospect next - heh

Author

Fielding

Date

2004-02-12T22:10:24-06:00