The only result of lower taxes: richer rich people

From Piketty and Saez, via the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Combine this with this:

And you get really rich rich people, and ... everybody else.

And yet you end up with journalists writing in all seriousness about the French election: "First, the good news: The left almost certainly will lose."

And you end up with articles that present taxes purely as a burden - money taken from you and that disappears, and never as a payment for necessary services, or as an investment in a community's future. As I wrote this morning over at European Tribune, economic journalism insidiously focuses on certain categories of people - the young, the healthy, the single, the professionals - those that are successful or expect to be, that do not need solidarity to take care of their healthcare, of the education of their children (if they have any) or of their pensions. By presenting them as victims of taxes, without ever discussing the simultaneous benefits to society of these taxes - and to them at some point in the future - these articles perpetuate a mindset that taxes are pure waste, used to prop up parasites and should only go down - it's their historic, natural, unavoidable destiny.

And thus you end up with societies that are increasingly unfair, with a stunning concentration of wealth at the top, and everybody else losing out.

A surprise rise in child poverty casts the government's strategy into doubt

TONY BLAIR'S most famous pronouncements on wealth aim at opposite ends of the income distribution. The prime minister once declared that Labour would abolish child poverty within a generation. He also said he had no burning ambition to make sure that David Beckham, a commodity with a sideline in football, earns any less.

In putting these two thoughts together, Mr Blair was sticking to a consensus that has held for the past 20 years. Broadly, this says that the rich can get as rich as they like, so long as the poor are getting better-off too.

However, new figures out this week suggest that the bargain isn't working. The number of poor children, as defined by the government, has grown by 100,000 in the past year. Furthermore, overall income inequality has grown too (see chart), despite hefty redistribution under Gordon Brown, the chancellor of the exchequer.

And that's in a nominally Labor European government, which has vastly increased public spending on things like education and healthcare (even while promoting "market" mechanisms everywhere and lambasting others who are more open about the role government should play)

Not taxing the rich has only one result: the rich are richer. Maybe that's a legitimate goal, but it should be clear that it's the only result. Prosperity for others is not included.

But that will be the only result of economic policy for so long as too many on the left accept the dominant discourse of the efficiency of markets, and the need for "reform" and liberalisation, and deregulation, and the dominance of narrow economic criteria over policy choices.

Take a look at the graphs above - they are the inevitable result of the politics of "economic efficiency" and the demonization of the concepts of government and tax.

If you don't fight for good government, and for the need to pay for it, you will not get good government.

•  Tip Jar - 30 March

  by Jerome a Paris on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 02:00:23 PM PDT

  •  Hey Mad Guy, Fix the TR

    This is a solid diary that we can all support. Hit the rec button not the TR button.

    by FishOutofWater on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 04:32:06 PM PDT

•  Sounds like Rethugs;

  If you don't fight for good government, and for the need to pay for it, you will not get good government.

  I've said it before, electing Rethugs to run gov is equivelant to hiring a convicted child molester to baby-sit your kids.

  by rage on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 02:07:35 PM PDT

•  The money of the rich goes into specualtion

  and second houses used 1 month out of the year, for example. It doesn't seem to have the same multiplier effect as money going to the working man.

  Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe our rich people are benefiting the Chinese or some other low income group overseas, but it's obvious that poor people in the US are not benefiting.

  by FishOutofWater on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 02:08:55 PM PDT

  •  It Goes Into Owning Society and Government

    A few 10's of thousands are just currency.

    A few 10's of billions are territory, industries and decisionmakers.

    by Gooserock on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 02:11:03 PM PDT

    •  Capitalism

      is what we see here.

      Nothing more.

      by Mr X on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 07:20:44 PM PDT

  •  Fat fingers and ADD strike again

    Capital - the money of the rich - moves around the globe at amazing speed these days. The instability can disrupt third world economies almost overnight. I would venture a guess that China is doing well because the government provides some stability for businesses.

    by FishOutofWater on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 02:13:35 PM PDT

    •  also

      consumer credit and savings is strictly regulated as is equity participation. seriously. on mainland, only global institutionals can buy any class of stock.

      and we are not, of course, including chinese mutual funds.

      by MarketTrustee on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 05:11:37 PM PDT

  •  You are correct

    And, because of that multiplier effect where do you think that money the non-rich get ends up anyways after passing through many hands.

    Give up?

    In the hands of the rich, unfortunately the rich have to work a little harder to get it than they would if they just get their taxes cut.

    Which would tip over on its head the concept that lowering taxes creates incentives to increase business.  It can actually be a disincentive.  Which is easier doing the same thing and making an extra million because your taxes were cut or working a little harder to lower costs increase production and get a million by selling more products to the non-rich?  I would guess the incentive is to do the former rather than the latter.

    by Donner on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 03:34:04 PM PDT

  •  No, it goes into investment, not speculation

    Some speculative investment maybe.  Some frivlous spending, depending on the individual.  But it really goes into owning everything.  There's a reason Bush was talking about the "ownership society".  Few of the people who supported him really are part of that segment of the population.  Some are, maybe a little over 1%, but most are not.  

    by Asak on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 10:18:05 PM PDT

•  Another example of facts...

  ...having a liberal bias.

  A little simple math will do it -- cut my taxes by 50%, and my refund will increase by about $100 because I'm so poor I hardly pay taxes in the first place. Cut Bill Gates' taxes by .1%, though, and his refund will increase by more than I've made in this decade.

  But as with so many other issues, Republics are counting on us all being too lazy to do the math and merely accepting their ridiculous talking points. It's no wonder they love the flat tax -- it would cripple public education and leave no chance for most people to wise up to their con.

  by wiscmass on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 02:09:25 PM PDT

  •  The 1st chart + the 2nd chart yields...

    this chart of wealth inequality, showing we are becoming more and more like Mexico and Brazil.

    QED.  That concludes today's class.  Pretty simple, no?

    P.S.  If someone knows how to publish the actual chart in a comment (I'm techno inept), that would be neat.

    by New Deal democrat on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 02:13:18 PM PDT

    •  That should also indicate...

      ...what's going to happen when Republics get tired of attacking all the "brown" people as illegal immigrants -- they'll be looking to deport anyone whose financial profile resembles that of the average Latin American.

      by wiscmass on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 02:15:24 PM PDT

      •  I don't think Bush & Big Biz owners want

        to deport brown people. They want to have plenty of inexpensive household labor. They complain about how hard it is to find good help. When my wife went to law school some years back there was a womens' support group on assertiveness training. The subject was: how to be assertive with your maid. Needless to say it didn't apply to us.

        For the last 25 years the Federal Reserve (directed by business-minded Republicans) has been setting interest rates at a level high enough to keep wages down. Whenever wages start creeping up, they ratchet up interest rates in the name of fighting inflation.

        The business ownership class doesn't want to drive out illegals because that would tend to limit labor supply and drive wages up. That would hurt profits.

        by FishOutofWater on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 04:29:48 PM PDT

        •  I really don't think interest rates are the key

          It's the other policies like tax cuts, including the massive tax cuts on the wealthy during the Reagan era that has caused the shift.  Lowering interest rates to raise wages doesn't do any good, because if all wages go up then it's just inflation.  It benefits no one.  

          If one year you are paid $30,000 and a loaf of bread costs a dollar, and the next year you're paid $60,000 and a loaf of bread costs $2, you are still at square one.  

          What I am trying to point out to you is you are focusing on the wrong thing and this can result in dangerous economic mismanagement.  Wealth is all about relativity.  The way to reduce wealth inequality is to tax the wealthier (and wealthiest) and redistribute it to the poor.  

          Run away inflation may help debtors, but I think in the end it probably hurts the poor and middle class more than the rich.  The reality is if you own land or stocks, they will appreciate along with inflation.  If you have money in a saving's account then you are in trouble.  

          Please take some time to reconsider your views on this matter.  

          by Asak on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 10:38:02 PM PDT

    •  Wanna see how it looks putting them together?

      Here ya go:

      

      Mexico, here we come.

      by redstar on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 02:25:43 PM PDT

    •  I'd like to see the data going back further

      I would be interested in seeing how some of the countries, like the U.S., France, Germany and Japan measure up if we went back to the late 1800s to early 1900s.  

      In specific I think the pre and post WWI comparison would be interesting.  WWI resulted in a massive shift from the previous aristocratic wealth dynamic to the more modern one which we know today.  In fact, a lot of scholars have come around to the belief that WWI actually had much more of an impact on the modern world than WWII.  

      by Asak on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 10:31:35 PM PDT

•  Do You Have Charts of Financial Net Worth

  for some of these brackets, especially within the top 1%?

  Scientific American had one in 02/01 as far as it went, through Clinton, but only broke the top 1% into the Forbes 400 vs the rest of the top 1%.

  Even under Clinton it showed that the bottom 99% was gaining no net worth, the aggragate top 1% only gaining weakly, while the top 400 families were skyrocketting.

  And those were the good days.

  by Gooserock on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 02:09:52 PM PDT

  •  Partial reply (I'm going through my files)

    

    

    

    But the one I find most fascinating is this one: not only the poor, but the "almost rich" did better in France than in the US:

    

    by Jerome a Paris on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 02:19:19 PM PDT

  •  Better

    There you go...

    

    (from the Financial Times. As most of my graphs, they come straight from ther business press, which does usually report the fact, but does not incorporate the logical conclusions in its narratives...)

    by Jerome a Paris on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 02:23:44 PM PDT

    •  Kind of funny, but...

      Wealth inequality actually increased less under Bush.  The wealthy did better in terms of percentage than the very wealthy.  All groups did worse in terms of an increase in net worth, but the difference in percentage terms is actually less.  It would be nice to see the effect of 04, 05 and 06.  

      This is not to say that Bush's policies were good by any means, but maybe it casts light on the fact that Clinton's policies were not very good.  

      Also it is interesting to see that the median wealthy have only $328,500 in networth.  Of course this is just the 75th percentile.  

      Honestly the graphs shown here are not complete, we really need to see the top 1% and top 1/10th of 1% to have a perspective on the situation.  

      by Asak on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 10:47:35 PM PDT

  •  The good news is...

    The wealth of the top 400 will be redistributed due to the estate tax.  The repeal of the estate tax would be the single biggest factor that would set us on a path toward third world status.  The estate tax repeal predominately benefits those that are a fraction of 1% of the population.  Even those estates subject to the estate tax do not benefit to the same extent the ultra wealthy do.  

    by Asak on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 11:00:41 PM PDT

•  Nice diary. It has been a class war,

  but working folks have been losing.  It's time to change that.

  by TomP on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 02:13:10 PM PDT

  •  according to the msm

    it's only a class war when you call them on it.

    by Turkana on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 02:20:09 PM PDT

    •  It's only a class war if the rich are the victims

      ...according to the right-wing news media.

      by boofdah on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 02:41:15 PM PDT

      •  otherwise, it's 'reform'

        There are lots of admiring stories about Germany's "recovery" these days, all lauding the fact that it's having one year of nice growth after ten years of stagnation and no increase in living standards - and of course explaining that dynamism precisely because of wage moderation (the same one that caused flat consumption and thus no growth) because it has allowed for record corporate profits.

        So one year of growth (and growing wages) is enough to justify ten years of restrictions, but you already hear that workers 'should not be too greedy' in asking for a sharing of the fruits of growth, for fear of undermining it.

        If things are tough: cut wages to improve competitivity;
        If things are going better: keep wages down not to kill the recovery
        If things are going well: keep wages down to not compromise competitivity
        If things are going less well: keep wages down to avoid recession.

        It's simple really: to get rich (don't ask who), keep wages down.

        by Jerome a Paris on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 02:53:53 PM PDT

        •  Yeah, but that is the problem of the modern world

          The real issue is the competition offered by low paid workers throughout the third world.  The average standard of living in the developed world is being dragged down because of this competition.  Eventually we'll probably meet them halfway.  Yes, this does benefit the rich at the expense of everyone else, but at the same time the problem is more than just the rich.  

          by Asak on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 10:54:40 PM PDT

  •  It's not a class war, that's the problem

    The poor and middle class are losing because the idea that classicism exists went out during the 70s.  Since then we've been pretending there's no such thing as class, and the lower and middle classes have been losing because of it.  All of the class solidarity necessary to keep the upper class in line has disappeared.  Instead we have a winner take all system where the lower classes are squabbling amongst themselves over scraps while the rich feast on roast.  

    Until people realize that the class divide is very real, nothing is going to change.  In theory a democracy should allow the majority to have a say, but when the majority are not paying attention or are brainwashed into believing everything is fine, then it's irrelevant.  I try to remain optimistic, but I don't really have that much hope that people here will ever truly wake up.

    It's too easy to control people, it's why we've been ruled by a small minority from almost the beginning of recorded history.  The rules have changed, but human nature, specifically human stupidity have remained the same.  

    by Asak on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 10:52:31 PM PDT

•  ho hum

  33.4 million americans in poverty, 12.9 million of them children.

  by Turkana on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 02:16:02 PM PDT

  •  Right, poverty rates were much higher in the

    50's and 60's.  In fact they are still lower today than they were before Clinton enacted Welform Reform.

    by deathsinger on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 02:37:28 PM PDT

    •  actually

      the rate fell dramatically after the great society programs were instituted. it swung upwards a little under carter, then took a big jump under reagan. it started dropping again after clinton's tax increases. but thanks for aping right wing talking points.

      by Turkana on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 02:52:44 PM PDT

      •  No, no, technically s/he's right... sort of

        Poverty rates fell from the 20s in the 1950s down to 9.7 (lower than the current rate) in 1969, and then stuck around there for a while.  In 1980 they got back up above 10, peaking in 1983 (Reagan, downward trend from there due to massive deficit spending) and 1993 (the aftermath of Bush I, downward trend from there due to a fabulous economy) and only fell back below 10 in 1999.  This, of course, had nothing to do with welfare reform and everything to do with the economy.

        -fred

        by Fred Fnord on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 03:42:10 PM PDT

        •  the biggest drop was 1964-1969

          which just happened to coincide with the great society  economic programs and the vietnam war. the sharpest rises happened at the end of carter's term, the start of reagan's, the start of bush's, and the start of bush ii's. under clinton, the drop started in 1994, the year his tax increase took effect.

          by Turkana on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 04:15:12 PM PDT

          •  The drop started prior to 1964.

            Poverty rose in Clinton's first year, matching a 10 year high.  The numbers in Clinton's first term are eerily similar to 10 years prior

            Families in poverty as a percentage

            1983, 1993 - 12.3
            1984, 1994 - 11.6
            1985, 1995 - 11.4/10.8
            1986, 1996 - 10.9/11.0
            1987, 1997 - 10.7/10.3
            1988, 1998 - 10.4/10.0
            1989, 1999  (this is where the departure becomes noticeable) 10.3/9.3
            1990, 2000 - 10.7/8.7
            1991, 2001 - 11.5/9.2
            1992, 2002 - 11.9/9.6

            by deathsinger on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 06:18:31 PM PDT

            •  the biggest drop was 1964-1969

              it rapidly accelerated. clinton's first year was the year his tax cuts were passed. they had not yet taken effect, so 1993 is not relevant. 1983 was after reagan's tax cuts had taken effect. in 1981, the rate was 12.5. in 1983 it was 13.9, not 12.3. that is, if you accept the census bureau' data.

              by Turkana on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 06:24:52 PM PDT

              •  All those numbers

                came from Census Bureau Historical Family Poverty Rates Tables.

                As far as

                clinton's first year was the year his tax cuts were passed. they had not yet taken effect, so 1993 is not relevant.

                You mentioned the rise in Reagan's term, the rise in H.W. Bush's term (which happened not at the beginning, but in the middle) and W's term.  Somehow, Clinton's isn't relevant.  Hmmmmm....

                by deathsinger on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 06:44:38 PM PDT

                •  uh yeah

                  the rises in reagan's and bush's took place into their terms. the drop in clinton's took place after his tax cuts took effect. you demonstrate the capacity for logic that one expects from repug apologists.

                  by Turkana on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 08:01:25 PM PDT

                  •  Too bad you demonstrate only

                    an ability to insult instead of any logic.

                    by deathsinger on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 08:06:09 PM PDT

                    •  when someone makes it up

                      as they go along, yeah- i give them the respect they deserve.

                      by Turkana on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 08:37:17 PM PDT

  •  We abuse our children with neglect

    Then build more prisons every year.

    We've got so far to go sometimes I wonder if we'll ever make it...I just pray we're wise enough to take the very first steps in investing in our children, for then the humans will really start to shine and it will be irresistible to stop, it's too much fun to watch kids and society thrive.

    I don't get it.  We're all so much better off and there is so much human potential wasted.  We need that potential, don't fool yourselves.

    I could give a shit, I just want to see happy healthy kids who never get arrested growing up in my country.  Ain't hard to do, jesus save us.

    by paradox on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 03:49:13 PM PDT

    •  we spend more on prisons

      than schools.

      by Turkana on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 04:16:32 PM PDT

      •  It's the costofwar

        dotcom and the complete lack of congressional oversight, stupid.

        by SoldiersInRevolt on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 07:24:43 PM PDT

•  A response to those who complain about taxes

  for me is to point out that this is a great thing to have the chance to complain about.  

  A. If you're complaining about that, normally means other things in life (health, employment) are doing reasonably well.

  B. The reason you pay taxes is that you earn money ... paying more taxes is associated with earning more money (oops, when it works right).  Thus, paying more taxes is a pretty good thing.

  And, then, of course, I get into the discussion of how taxes are core to a functioning society and there is so much that we, as individuals, can't do alone, but can only do as a collective.

  My favorite (snark) anti-taxers are those who say it should all be done by charitable organizations ... who then, it turns out, don't donate, because donations are for suckers.

  by A Siegel on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 02:18:42 PM PDT

  •  Mind you

    Republicans donate a larger percentage of their incomes to charity than Democrats do.

    Most of the people I know of who think charities are for suckers are libertarians anyway.

    -fred

    by Fred Fnord on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 03:45:14 PM PDT

    •  Citation of fact, please

      At The Daily Kos we back up our stuff.  I was under the impression that middle-class folks gave a significantly higher share to charity that the rich.

      I don't really know, though.  How do you know what you know, please?

      by paradox on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 03:51:45 PM PDT

      •  I am not sure why this matters

        I was under the impression that middle-class folks gave a significantly higher share to charity that the rich.

        So?  Conservatives on average make less than liberals.

        From the book:  Who Really Cares, etc

        Conservative households in America donate 30% more money to charity each year than liberal households, even in spite of lower average incomes

        by deathsinger on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 06:32:04 PM PDT

        •  what happens when you exclude

          giving to churches? And does the money to church help poor or boost ministers take?

          Not all "charities" are really charities, so where you give matters.

          Intersting item I read some time ago in an article that rich people give more of their charity dollars to arts activities that they mostly benefit from, diseases that run in their families etc. Way less than to "the poor."

          by mollyd on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 07:26:42 PM PDT

          •  I guess that would depend on the church to some

            degree.  In the Catholic church receipts don't affect priest stipend at all.  Most churches operate services for the poor, so I don't think that you can discount them as charities.

            However, this might answer your question.

            Religious people give away four times more money each year than secularists. This is not just because of giving to churches - religious people are 10 percent more likely than secularists to give money to explicitly nonreligious charities

            Intersting item I read some time ago in an article that rich people give more of their charity dollars to arts activities that they mostly benefit from, diseases that run in their families etc. Way less than to "the poor."

            Not sure why that is relevant.  What percentage of tax receipts go to the poor?  (As opposed to arts, science, pork and defense contractors.)

            Charity is about giving away something willingly.

            by deathsinger on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 07:36:59 PM PDT

            •  super rich are stingy

              Consider the numbers (which are based on current estimates in the recent Slate 60 index of the year's leading philanthropic donors and the net-worth estimates in the Forbes 400). The 60 leading American donors gave away $51 billion in 2006, according to Slate. They were led by Buffett, whose spectacular $44-billion donation — mainly to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, whose primary cause is healthcare in the developing world — was the largest gift anyone has ever given. These donors had an estimated combined net worth of $630 billion last year, meaning that they gave away 8% of their money, on average. Sounds magnanimous, until you consider that the Dow Jones industrial average rose 16% in 2006 — which suggests that, as a group, the leading donors contributed less than they gained.

              Now subtract Buffett and his generous gift from the group, and the rest of them begin to look downright miserly, handing to others a mere $7 billion of a combined net worth of $584 billion — or just over 1%. Numbers from the philanthropy watch organization Giving USA show that Americans as a whole annually give away about 0.5% of their net worth. So, except for Buffett, society's top givers donate to others at only a tad higher rate than the population as a whole. That's, well, pathetic. And that's just counting top givers, not the super-rich who give away little or nothing.

              Microsoft mogul Paul Allen, net worth $16 billion, gave away $53 million in 2006, according to Slate — one-third of 1% of his fortune. Software magnate Lawrence Ellison, net worth $20 billion, gave away $100 million — half of 1%. Pierre Omidyar, founder of EBay, net worth $7.7 billion, gave away $67 million — less than 1%. Nike tycoon Philip Knight, net worth $7.9 billion, gave away $105 million — slightly more than 1%. http://www.latimes.com/...

              by mollyd on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 07:48:06 PM PDT

              •  So, the super rich

                are stingy.  I didn't assert that they weren't.

                The latimes is also using a deceptive notion of charitable giving, they are using net worth, not income.  Net worth isn't liquid.  Bill Gates cannot actually sell his stock for the paper value of his net worth...

                by deathsinger on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 07:55:08 PM PDT

                •  On the other hand...

                  ...he can, and the rich very often do, give his stock to charity and be credited for the full face value of it.

                  -fred

                  by Fred Fnord on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 10:26:28 PM PDT

        •  Is it religious charity? n/t

          by mike101 on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 07:34:47 PM PDT

          •  asdf

            Religious people give away four times more money each year than secularists. This is not just because of giving to churches - religious people are 10 percent more likely than secularists to give money to explicitly nonreligious charities

            by deathsinger on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 07:37:34 PM PDT

            •  In conservative writing we trust. n/t

              by mike101 on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 08:05:36 PM PDT

              •  The author is a liberal professor, who

                was trying to prove the opposite.  But go on and trash the source instead...

                by deathsinger on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 08:07:35 PM PDT

                •  Really? n/t

                  by mike101 on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 08:45:50 PM PDT

                  •  Really.

                    You should've heard him on NPR.  He sounded awfully embarrassed for liberals.

                    -fred

                    by Fred Fnord on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 10:27:39 PM PDT

                    •  He shouldn't be.

                      I think it might be that we pay taxes and expect that stuff to be handled by our government.

                      by mike101 on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 06:46:47 PM PDT

    •  re my comment ...

      I did not make mention of party affiliation.  I actually would not be surprised if the four people who I am thinking of couldn't be bothered to register / vote since, obviously, taking time out ones life to vote would also be for suckers, to use their terms.

      by A Siegel on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 05:14:28 PM PDT

    •  I really doubt this...

      A larger sum, maybe.  A larger percentage, no.  

      by Asak on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 11:02:19 PM PDT

      •  Never mind

        Looks like there is some evidence.  At the same time, could this not be a sign that liberals feel that higher taxes and the government should be responsible for this sort of thing?  Just because the conservatives put their money where their mouth is does not mean that liberals do not as well.  

        by Asak on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 11:06:00 PM PDT

  •  Exactly

    And what kills me is that many in the upper end of that middle quintile--I'm talking about middle and upper middle class--who vote republican for the cuts in their income tax, are often the same people who bitch about rises in property taxes, higher sales taxes, fees for public services, addition of toll roads, declining public education, higher tuition rates, etc.  I want to ask them where the hell they think that money comes from.  If you cut it from one place, it has to come from another.  Duh!

    I view taxes as my "annual dues" for my membership in a civilized society.  Seeing how things have deteriated under the last 30-40 years of lower and lower income taxes, I don't think my views are too far off.

    by TexH on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 06:16:12 PM PDT

    •  This is a key framing to me ...

      Something like

      You proud to be an American?

      Well, be ready to pay your dues.

      Nation is at war.

      Some people are paying dues with their limbs or lives.

      Least you can do is pay your dues from the luck you have to live in America where you can earn so much money.

      And, it takes money and resources to make this great club you're a member of run.  Those who can afford to are charged higher fees ...

      by A Siegel on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 07:56:56 PM PDT

•  I rarely complain about taxes.

  Because I recognize what those taxes buy for me.

  They get me:

  • Healthier food (although less so since FDA inspections are fewer and farter between)
  • Police protection
  • Fire Department protection
  • A court system to redress wrongs
  • An interstate highway system
  • Protection from dangerous manufactured goods
  • Unemployment insurance
  • Disability insurance
  • Old-age insurance

  Among other things.  If it weren't for my taxes, I'd be without any safety net, I'd be taking my chances with e coli every time I ate something and the only "protection" to be had would probably have to be purchased from the Sopranos.

  by GTPinNJ on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 02:29:52 PM PDT

  •  Until your out of work and

    paying property taxes in New Jersey. I agree with you except that any tax should be based on income otherwise you can lose everything.

    by java4every1 on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 02:38:11 PM PDT

    •  You mean that old

      people shouldn't lose their homes due to rising property taxes even if their income is declining?  Say it ain't so.  

      by kursk on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 02:48:41 PM PDT

      •  Not just old folks.

        Imagine being laid off with few good job prospects, little savings (also partly due to property taxes) and then have to come up with 14 or 15 thousand dollars (not counting the mortgage if you have one). Even unemployment is taxed. That's one we can blame on Bill.

        by java4every1 on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 03:00:43 PM PDT

        •  I know. Actually, property

          taxes are weird as it means you can never really own property.  I can see paying a sales tax when you sell and use taxes on utilities based on usage but not "property" taxes per se.

          by kursk on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 03:23:44 PM PDT

          •  Property taxes help pay for

            schools, roads, municipal services like trash, and some other thing. My parent have a modest rancher in New Jersey, and are paying $5-6,000 property taxes per year. $14-$15,000 is probably a pretty nice house.
            Unless we "fix" workers getting a fair share of their output, many of us will be forced to reevaluate our lifestyles, and what is a necessity.
            I have TWO roomates in the house I rent to keep my bills low. And I'n FORTY years old.
            Maybe you can get a roomate or move to a more modest dwelling if you don't think your job prospects are good. "Trading down" sucks, and again, unless things change, alot more people will be doing it.

            by sd4david on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 03:31:12 PM PDT

            •  Taxes pay for lots of things.

              WHAT is taxed is what I'm talking about.  I'd just like to be able to actually own a house.  Currently that isn't possible.  I can only rent the property from the gov't.  THAT is a fact.

              by kursk on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 03:33:32 PM PDT

              •  Unfortunately, there aren't a lot of options

                If you want the people who live in a community to pay for the services in that community, you can have:

                • Property taxes
                • Local sales tax (the most regressive tax possible)
                • Usage fees (a terrible idea... pay-per-drive)
                • A local income tax (very difficult to sell, prone to cheating)
                • Some sort of local flat tax (ha ha ha)

                Anything I'm missing?

                -fred

                by Fred Fnord on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 03:48:54 PM PDT

              •  This led to the

                California revolt back in the '70s.  House prices were rising so fast and the taxes were based on the property valuation, so a person could spend 50k for a modest home and 10 years later find that it was worth and being taxed at 100k.  This caused Californios to pass an intiative limiting the amount that property taxes can increase per year (something like one quarter of one percent) and the property only gets reevaluated at sale.

                Of course, this has also led to two people living side by side, one paying twice the property taxes of the other...but at least he can make a completely informed decision about the cost of his housing.

                by Sychotic1 on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 03:55:19 PM PDT

                •  When the tax base goes UP, rates go down

                  Every state is different. But where I lived, in New Jersey, when they reassesed houses, they also changed the rates. If housing prices doubled, rates were cut roughly in half. Of course they went up a bit every year, but there were no doublings in a year.
                  In California, tax rates are a tad over 1% of the price you paid for the house. They can't rise more than 2% a year due to one prop in the 1970's. Now two people can live in virtually identical houses, and pay VASTLY different taxes. If you paid $100,000 for the house, your taxes would be just over $1,000 a year. If you bought an identical house many years later for a million, you would be paying 10 times as much tax for an identical property. Something isn't right about that. PLUS, it gives a BIG disincentive to sell, and properties become rentals. And most neighborhoods want home OWNERS because they take better care of the properties.

                  by sd4david on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 04:30:58 PM PDT

            •  At 6-7 thousand a year, it's easy to

              accrue a 14-15 thousand tax liabilty, if you hadn't paid the current year yet plus late interest, this could happen in just 12 months. Property taxes put a much higher percentage of tax on low wage earner's income than the wealthy. It's a very unprogressive tax. Even renters get whacked because the property tax is built into your rent, so your paying tax on property you don't even own.

              by java4every1 on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 04:00:32 PM PDT

              •  well, if you REALLY want to complain

                At least in New Jersey a good chunk of property taxes went to schools. I didn't have kids EVER, but paid that tax. And why should single people subsidize other peoples kids, paying more in taxes and getting no services (via the income tax dependent deductibility). Richer peope buy bigger houses, and thus pay more property taxes. There will never be a tax system without it's flaws. The "bills" taxes pay have to get paid somehow. (Almost) Everyone lives somewhere, so we all pay that property tax.

                by sd4david on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 06:14:54 PM PDT

                •  I'm not against paying for services and

                  I've also paid property taxes for 36 years and have no children. But school budgets should be state funded based on the number of pupils and there should be no federal unfunded mandates.

                  by java4every1 on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 07:13:40 PM PDT

                •   then again , when you are old

                  you'll need those kids to change your diapers.  You might want them to be literate, too in case you're taking meds.

                  by sayitaintso on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 07:45:13 PM PDT

                  •  EVERYONE should helpf with kids

                    But it's just a DOUBLE WHAMMY bacause if two people make the same income, the one with kids pays LESS TAXES and GETS MORE Services. The ones with the kids get lots of benefits from having kids which single people do not. SO not only do we help pay for the schools, we help pay for other expenses of raising the kids,  like food, clothing, etc. And we do this for kids with rich parents, too. I'm really not complaining, just pointing out facts.

                    by sd4david on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 08:25:51 AM PDT

          •  Consider the cost of a another system

            property taxes exist at the local level.  They are much, much easy to levy than an income tax.

            by deathsinger on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 06:34:27 PM PDT

          •  They are to prevent a landed gentry

            Once again people are looking at their own individual situation and not seeing the forest for the trees.  

            The reality is, yes, you can never actually own land.  It is owned by the country.  The country's ownership supercedes your private ownership and you pay taxes as a result of that.  

            If we get rid of property taxes then it will just increase the pace at which we are approaching a third world country.  Within a few generations the wealthy will own everything, which they may anyway.  

            by Asak on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 11:09:24 PM PDT

      •  you rang?

        Middle class New Jersey spends an astonishing amount of time complaining about property taxes.

        Working class New Jersey is actually hit harder, but has more pressing problems.

        Rich New Jersey sits back and chuckles discreetly.

        If we financed schools on a state-wide basis we'd be on the road to sanity.

        Instead, we cut pensions for public employees.

        by sayitaintso on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 07:42:50 PM PDT

  •  My taxes cost me $500 to file

    I often 1099 contract and I couldn't figure this shit out to save my life.  I hire a very nice man who does it for me.  Often quarterly.

    That's all I bitch about, the complexity, but whatever.  I don't care that much, not hardly.

    by paradox on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 03:53:55 PM PDT

•  All I can say is...

  ...ya' think?!?
  I love how the right-wingers will decry "class warfare" when they are the ones that have been waging it for 30 years.

  by lams712 on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 02:40:30 PM PDT

  •  Yeah but that is the trick, isn't it?

    The best way to accomplish something is to do it while misdirecting people and keeping them from realizing you are doing it.  

    by Asak on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 11:12:58 PM PDT

•  From Fig. 1, it seems the US economy did well

  during those old days of high tax rates and has been middling to poor since they started coming down - except when tax rates rose again during the Clinton Admin.   Hmmmmm . . .

  by sxwarren on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 02:47:35 PM PDT

  •  The rate of real growth was all that

    different in the 80's than it was in the 90's.

    by deathsinger on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 06:35:50 PM PDT

  •  Dammit, my comment should have ended

    in a ?, not a .

    by deathsinger on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 06:45:37 PM PDT

    •  Took me a minute, but, yeah, there were

      problems with inflation during the Clinton Admin - in a specific economic sector, just as there have been during Bush 43 (different sector).  Not necessarily "real" growth, but still reductions in debt and other negative factors that had been moving the economy toward, well, what we have now.

      by sxwarren on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 08:47:34 PM PDT

•  Taxes a burden?

  Whatever happened to the concept of the common good? All leaders who believe in it should talk about it more often.

  Yet even though we are starting to have that conversation more often it is not being said often enough and with emphasis to bring all of us back to a common civil and moral responsibility.

  by CanYouBeAngryAndStillDream on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 02:48:44 PM PDT

  •  Common Good?

    But that's communist, or worse, LIBERAL thinking! </snark>

    See how the RW has set the frame of the debate in society: seize the ability to control the meaning of the words of political language, with a variety of propaganda tools, and you seize control of the high-ground in the battle for popular opinion and general consent.

    Too bad the f!kers mistook "1984" for a how-to guide rather than as a cautionary tale...

    by mojo workin on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 05:34:41 PM PDT

  •  There is one candidate that talks

    about the common good and income disparities / class divisions.  You know who!

    And so did a bunch of the folks that actually won in 2006: Tester, Webb, Brown, McCaskill, Sanders.

    by philgoblue on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 05:40:59 PM PDT

    •  That should be a clue

      for others who haven't figured out that Americans really do believe in a common good that is not socialistic.

      by CanYouBeAngryAndStillDream on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 01:45:55 AM PDT

•  The myth of de-regulation

  There is no such thing people. Every system that can possibly be conceived of is regulated, and every system that can possibly be conceived of has taxes. So the entire enterprise of eliminating government regulation and eliminating taxation is incoherent, illogical and a fraud.

  You see, we can take away every aspect of government that we are familiar with today. We can take away every dollar of tax owed to pay for government services, salaries and overhead. But after all is said and done, VOILA! It turns out that despite our best efforts, all we can do is exchange one principle of regulation for another one, one form of taxation for another one.

  UNLESS... Unless, of course, you are the meanest, most violent, shrewdest bastard on the block, and have absolutely no empathy for anyone at all. In that case ALONE, that individual not only is free from taxation and regulation, but in fact taxes all others as they see fit and is the source of all regulation.

  There's a reason this approach used to be called "laissez-faire" (literally "lets you do (whatever)")--because it allows a complete free-for-all. Gone is the current principle of wealth re-distribution: allowing some to earn almost as much as the system can bear, but returning just a tiny fraction of those earnings in order to pay for services for all, and help for the disadvantaged. In it's place we have: whatever the hell the most vicious bastard wants. Of course, many people support this kind of "de-regulation" for one of bsically two reasons: venality or ignorance and stupidity.

  I'm not generally an elitist, but there's no doubt that allowing the stupids to vote has risks. Sad to say that I count myself among the stupids on many occasions, but I would gladly give up my right to influence things if someone smarter would do it for me.

  by thingamabob on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 02:49:06 PM PDT

  •  Lost me a bit....

    What does this mean?

    I'm not generally an elitist, but there's no doubt that allowing the stupids to vote has risks. Sad to say that I count myself among the stupids on many occasions, but I would gladly give up my right to influence things if someone smarter would do it for me.

    by Sanuk on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 03:22:34 PM PDT

    •  I was rambling

      And now that I'm no longer influenced by high levels of endorphins, I'm not sure what I mean. Except that, as long as there is a sizable majority or even minority of voters who will vote according to their fondest wishes instead of some rational principle, we're stuck with arch-manipulators getting elected, time and again.

      And thus, the Bush "tax cuts".

      by thingamabob on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 06:51:37 PM PDT

    •  Another way of putting it

      What I neatly obscured by glibly referring to "the stupids" is that most people cannot see the broader truth underlying the myriad small reasons they vote for some policy or politician. In other words, they think they are voting for "tax cuts", and for less "government interference". What they are actually voting for, of course, is a different calculus of taxes, fees and so on, and a more insidious and covert regulation imposed without explanation by the corporatocracy and the extremely wealthy individuals who run it.

      A far better, pithier way of saying it, and one of the enduring lines of all rock'n'roll:
      
      Meet the new boss, same as the old boss!

      by thingamabob on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 06:58:38 PM PDT

  •  Not stupidity...but: "The American Dream"

    No, not the play by Albee, although that was funny too, what you are lamenting is the wishful thinking that makes people vote for "winner-take-all" politics, people who are not themselves affluent, but have bought into the myth that if you persevere, and keep your eyes on the prize, you just might make it to the top. What they don't suspect is that the American Dream is really just a shell game, played in the back of a crosstown bus by talented hucksters. You're not an elitist. You just refuse to be taken. More people need to watch "Citizen Kane", at around age 8 or 9, and then every year for about 9 or 10 years, until they get it.

    by Nimbus on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 03:27:51 PM PDT

    •  Nimbus