It's Time For Another Installment Of "Gosh, Ya Think...?"

[filkertom]

Fixing the rising US budget deficit may require higher taxes.

Gosh, ya think...?

For the past thirty years, ever since Reagan, conservatives have done everything they could to slash taxes for the rich, and dump the burden of keeping up with services on the poor, on the states, on the cities. After eight years of BushCo -- during which we had massive tax cuts for the highest income brackets, two off-the-books wars, incredible deregulation in the financial industry, acceleration of outsourcing to cheaper overseas facilities and constant erosion of the protective effect of labor unions and various other factors leading to rampant unemployment, using many of the National Guard troops that are supposed to deal with local situations in Iraq instead, an ongoing collapse in the housing market, and the insane rise of health care and health insurance costs -- the freakin' Repub leaders keep saying the people have to make sacrifices.

There's damn near nothing left to sacrifice.

Again again again: Taxes are your membership fee for civilization. Some people can afford a lot more. They also be the ones who happen to use a lot more. This isn't an attack on their lifestyles or wealth or anything; this is a simple fact.

Some people are determined to go it alone, or at least make others go it alone. But there's too damn much civ we all take advantage of not to all pay a little bit for it, and some to pay more because, again, they use more of it.

"Promote the General Welfare" is there so we don't have bodies in the street, poor people on every corner, unemployment riots, and a gazillion other things.

The article quotes someone who says Horrors! There'll be more tax evasion! Then do something about it. Laws are in place. Hell, the US is pressuring UBS in Switzerland to close its secret bank accounts.

Everybody's bleeding right now except really rich people. And they apparently still don't understand that their really rich world is built on a foundation of poorer people, of middle-class people, of employed and healthy and relatively happy people, that is crumbling beneath them.

Comments

[ladystarblade.livejournal.com]

Taxes are your membership fee for civilization.

Well said, well said.

Unfortunately, it's an all too common attitude in this country...we are entitled and we are owed and we wantwantWANTwant all of these things and services...but we scream bloody murder when we're told we have to give something for it. And funny how often those who yell this the loudest are the least willing to give anything.

Coincidence? I think not.

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

Go for it. :)

[ann-totusek.livejournal.com]

I am not an economist, so I wonder if a flat-rate, no loopholes, rebates, or credits tax structure might not work better. 10% (for example) off the top for everybody after health care (assuming no single payer plan is available), period, no exceptions except for people at or below the poverty line. No one would complain about how awful the forms were to fill out anymore....

I would think that the rich would end up paying LOTS more than they do now with all their currently available write-offs and loopholes, and the poor wouldn't have to pay at all, enabling them (hopefully) to improve their circumstances.

[banjoplayinnerd.livejournal.com]

The problem is that 10% of your annual income is a lot more to a single mother making minimum wage and trying to keep her family afloat than it is to the CEO of Citibank. We'd about have to have socialized child care, WIC-type subsidies, food stamps, etc. for the poor to make up for it. I think some kind of progressive tax needs to be the answer, but I'm not an economist so I can't begin to imagine what that tax would look like.

A flat tax sounds attractive but it seems to me like an example of Mencken's dictum, "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

If you did this, you'd want to make it a one-time tax on holdings, not income. Tax people at a low overall rate -- say, 2% -- of the value of EVERYTHING they own, and you wind up with the wealthy, who own on the order of 50% of the country, paying close to their proportionate share.

Let it revert to a progressive income tax after that, though, as after that point you'd want to ensure that people are only taxed on what they acquire from that point on. (Of course, the tax rates would need adjusting back upward in the top brackets, so that that group continued to pay their fair share based on overall income.)

[alverant.livejournal.com]

Two problems with that.

First taxing a salary would not include perks, bonuses, privileges, and so on and if you tried to close the loophole people would find a way around it.

Second is that items cost a fixed rate so a poorer family would have a larger percentage of their budget for necessities like insurance, food, utilities, etc than a richer family. While that's part of the inherent difference between being rich and poor, it also means the amount of tax will be larger in comparison to other expenses.

For example one family may spend the same amount on food than on taxes while another family would spend half that amount even if they buy the same amount of food. Suddenly taxes take up a bigger chunk of the budget than expected.

[dornbeast.livejournal.com]

The thing that gets me is that there's less of a sense of community.

Maybe I'm just behind the curve, but I subscribe to the idea that we are Americans. Every one of us. The liberal people I work with, the Tea Party people I've never met, the poor in Detroit, the rich in New York, and so many that I just don't have the time to list them all.

But there's this sense of separation now. A feeling that people have started seeing "those people," people that live here, can trace their family back a generation or three or five or whatever before leaving America, but somehow aren't Us. They aren't the Real America.

Out of many, one. But if people keep separating like this, out of one, there will be many.

[unclelumpy.livejournal.com]

But how are we supposed to join together if every time we reach out our hand, it gets slapped back in our face?

[n-e-star.livejournal.com]

If this was a personal situation, the first thought wouldn't be, "Gee, I need to make more money." it would be, "Gee, I can give up that gym membership I don't really use. Maybe I should cut back on eating out. Wow, a Netflix account is much cheaper then going to the movies."

It's time that we force our representatives to look at what's going on and cut out the extras.

[banjoplayinnerd.livejournal.com]

What are the extras, though? I'm sure there are some programs that pretty much everyone (except maybe the bureaucrats and lobbyists who created them in the first place) can agree need to get the axe, but apart from those, we lose sight of the fact that there are people who depend on the government for their jobs. Personally I'd like to see the defense budget cut back (and no accusations of being a military wimp please, we already outspend the next two or three countries on the list put together), but a fighter jet that doesn't get built or a Navy base that closes means people lose their jobs, which has a ripple effect on suppliers and communities.

I'm in favor of cutting waste and fat from the budget. It's an easy way to save, kind of like turning off the TV and the lights when you leave the room. I'm just saying be cautious about it and don't just hack and slash your way through the budget like Sherman marching to the sea, because you may end up cutting muscle and bone instead of fat.

[brianh]

The thing is, governments are not like people or individuals. Governments and the services they provide are-- despite rumors to the contrary-- very rarely 'extras' in the first place. Education is never an extra; it's how you continue to support your infrastructure. Social services aren't extras; they provide padding and support and growth. Roads are DEFINITELY not extras. Power, water, safety-- these things are done much better by governments than privately. Remember things that McCain was complaining about as 'pork'? That huge "projector"? It was a part of a star room for an astronomical observatory. The sort of thing that creates wonder and inspires everyone from engineers to astronomers to physicists.

A lot of what politicians call 'pork' is even more than just inspirational in other places-- it's vital. 'Pork' in many places is what creates the roads, or maintains the national park, or deals with various types of local damage or need. The only place that we GET a lot of real waste is in military spending, which is almost immune to cutting-- and even if it could be cut, we'd have to be really careful or we'd continue to harm our industrial base.

Governments in a recession that cut spending end up damaging their economy. Governments in recessions, and depressions, that spend more money, see recovery faster. Even make-work projects (like the archaeological work during the Great Depression) start money and work flowing into local economies that provide a boost that can help sustain until more long-term projects are available.

Besides, as Tom said up above, there ISN'T anything to cut. There are no Netflix or Gym accounts (again, outside of the military). Art, music, education-- everything's been cut, and most of those were vitally important in the first place. Art keeps kids in schools and prevents them from damaging school property. Art and music both increase mathematic and visualization capability.

When it comes to the domestic, civilian side of the budget, there is NOTHING to cut... and a lot of it needs to be paid back in before we recover.

[lizziecrowe.livejournal.com]

Taxes are your membership fee for civilization.

Damn right!

I'm firmly in the camp of flat rate percentage for taxes. If everyone pays 20%, then the people how have more money will pay more regardless, and NO ONE can bitch about tax brackets or paying more because everyone is getting the same chunk deducted.

[banjoplayinnerd.livejournal.com]

Again, though, if I'm making $50,000 a year and paying $1500 in taxes and barely getting by, what happens when my tax rate goes up to $10,000 a year? I'd be thinking there'd better be a pony somewhere near the bottom of that pile.

[brianh]

Flat tax, especially on income, ignore the fact that types of incoming money are different for people with different wealth. It also ignores the fact that lifestyle maintenance as a percent decreases even as lifestyle costs increases to what's considered to be "right" for their income level. Someone who's making, say, $1 million a year-- especially if that includes investments, perks, bonuses, etc.-- spends a lot less of that million to maintain their McMansion lifestyle than someone who's making $100,000 does to maintain their suburban lifestyle, who in turn spends a lot less than someone who makes only $20,000 and is living from paycheck to paycheck, renting an apartment, can't pay for labor/cost saving devices, can't buy new cars (buying used increases costs over lifetime ownership, even for people who can work on their own cars), etc.

[unclelumpy.livejournal.com]

Isn't it funny how a lot of these people who romantacize the 1950s as "the good old days" seem to forget that was BEFORE post-Reagan feudalism, when the rich bore the majority of the tax burden?

[banjoplayinnerd.livejournal.com]

I read somewhere that tax rates under FDR topped out over 90%. Can anyone verify this?

[liddle-oldman.livejournal.com]

No one has ever explained to me what is actually wrong with "From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs".

[dornbeast.livejournal.com]

First question: who defines my abilities?

Second question: who defines my needs?

Third question: Are the people making the definitions going to get it right?

Fourth question: How corruptible are the people making the definitions? ("I need a chalet on the Black Sea...")

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

The purpose of (the US) government is "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity". Funny how the only one most opponents of big government think is important is "common defense", and how they push for that function to be not only exorbitant but bloated -- and outside the defined budget.

[alverant.livejournal.com]

For me the big problem is how the tax money gets used. For example I approve of bailing out the banks with major strings attached (it was their unrestrained greed that is at the root of this economic mess) but when said banks gave millions out in bonuses. I was against the war in Iraq from the start and don't want my tax dollars used for that. On the flip side I'm sure someone wants their tax dollars spent on killing brown skinned people who worship different gods and against having to pay for schools. And chances are both of us forget some of the essential services our tax dollars pay for.

We have to accept that our taxes pay for things we don't want. But we should still be on the watch for corruption. How much would we save if we eliminated all the corruption?

[bayushisan.livejournal.com]

The tax debate can be a really ugly one. Where do you draw the line at fair taxation and unfair taxation? As it stands there are state taxes, federal taxes, social security tax, sales tax, estate tax, etc. Between state and federal taxes one can pay up to 60% of their income in taxes and that seems a bit much no matter who you are. So what's the best solution? I know I don't know.

[brianh]

Actually, that 60% doesn't seem unfair to me. The 90% under Roosevelt (marginal, which meant it only applied to the PART of the income in that bracket, ie, not on the basics below) doesn't seem unfair to me. The people to whom most of this apply concentrate MASSIVE amounts of money. 10%, let alone 40%, of the income at those levels is still hundreds to thousands to -- there's an income graph somewhere that shows the change in the difference between CEO and worker wages that's impossibly obcene-- huge amounts times what even middle class or lower upper class incomes get-- and a lot of that comes FROM everyone else. Not just cars and food, but military tech spending from the government, or payday loans and rental furnishings, or health insurance, feeds directly into the wealthy, often while sabotaging or draining the rest of us.

[roycalbeck.livejournal.com]

Actually, almost all the Repub tax-slashing went across the board. Bush's "tax cut for the rich" gave the rich a much smaller slice, proportionally, than it gave anyone else.

The standard schtick is, of course, that ANY tax cut which benefits the rich is hated by anyone who is not rich, and is therefore easy to attack for partisan purposes. And I expect to be bashed right here for pointing out the historical reality on precisely that basis: because Republicans CANNOT be seen to have been anything but corporate greedheads doing the bidding of the likes of Bill Gates. Believing otherwise makes it less easy to label, dismiss, and loathe them with the passion of Pat Robertson carrying on about gays.

See, I'm a lifelong indie who's run for office as a third-party candidate, so I get to bash BOTH sides because neither the Dems nor the Repubs are my "home team". So of course, when I decry Republican shenanigans (like the idiocy of the "strategy" used to pursue the war in Iraq, or the fact that Reagan should properly have been impeached over the Iran-Contra Affair), the Repubs decide I am a liberal moonbat who must be destroyed. And when I point out that the Democrats have institutionalized fearmongering and hatred into core party ideals --- exactly what they supposedly hate the Repubs for doing --- the claims abound that I watch Fox News and get my marching orders from Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh.

It would be hilarious if it wasn't so damn tragic to watch the lot of you, on both sides, carry on like this. Both parties need to be replaced for destruction of trust.

[alverant.livejournal.com]

Can you give an example of "institutionalized fearmongering and hatred" please?

[roycalbeck.livejournal.com]

"Cost of living is a part of fair and equal treatment under the law": You'll never get a lawyer or judge to say so.

"The law responds to the use of lawyers, of appearances, of knowledge of the systems": No, it does not. I'm currently suing a corporation for copyright infringement. As a pro se litigant who cannot afford a lawyer, I am stuck doing it entirely by myself and have been repeatedly told by the judge that I can and will be held accountable to the same exact rules as any lawyer. My "benefit" is solely that I can apply "in forma pauperis" to ask the court for permission to waive the filing fees. I still have to pay for all incidental expenses. The total "benefit" of being poor is a savings of $350 for the district court filing fee, and $455 for the 9th Circuit filing fee (if any becomes necessary). Yay, I'm poor so I save $805 pursuing justice.

"Military spending has become less and less local. Republican governors have fought to see military contracts go to lower-paying (and lower efficiency) non-unionized foreign workers": link plz? First I've heard anyone even allege such a thing. Closest I think you'll get is complaining about the importation of foreign workers under the HB-1 program...which is a federal, not a state, matter.

"subsidies for green corporations": So if all the corporations you hate go green, subsidizing them becomes okay? But frankly, on the rest of it, I agree: I would like to see government "invest in America". We are not, however, seeing that so far...largely because the stimulus process has been a mess, both under Bush and Obama.

Heck, I think the simplest single thing they COULD have done was just plain buy out all the toxic real estate assets and then impose stronger regulation to prevent a recurrence (or, worse, a specific desire to create toxic assets the government would later be forced to purchase). Resell the real estate as the market rebounds, effectively "holding it in trust", even if at something of a loss. Worst case scenario: low-income housing and small-business support subsidies through cheap HUD-based real estate. That would have instantly, not slowly, infused the "missing money" back into the system, buffing up the credit market and hence the banks without having to do a direct bailout of them. This would have allowed a more thoughtful and less panicky process of reform.

"Gingrich was protected when he did the exact same ethical breach that he'd campaigned against Tip O'Neil, yes. They circled the wagons around him and all but pushed it out of public debate": Yeah, I agree, it was hypocritical --- but then, Tip O'Neill wasn't held to the same account Gingrich was, was he? And I did NOT see the Repubs circle the wagons around Gingrich, not when the facts came out. Initially, sure, when it was just allegations. But then again, my complaint about Democrats is they circle the wagons even AFTER the facts come out, and routinely so.

"Clinton's BJ would never have become an -issue- if the Republicans hadn't become obsessed over blaming them for land deals": Uh, sorry, no; it was Janet Reno who ordered Ken Starr to combine both Whitewater and the sexual harassment matters into the same investigation. As it was, Clinton was offered (and accepted) a seven-part plea arrangement. Most of it was just accepting sanctions already taken for misleading the courts and lying directly to the public (impeachment, disbarment from practice of law for a certain period, and fines). He was also required to settle with Paula Jones.

The only reason Clinton's BJ was an issue at all was because he lied about it in order to prevent the prosecution in a sexual harassment case from establishing a pattern of sexual predation on his part...a common procedure in such cases. They didn't even know he WAS banging Lewinsky at the time.

"What I am doing is refusing to let the fact that rubbing, polishing, and photoshopping can make activism look like demagoguery": That is precisely my problem with you lot. Rubbing, polishing, and photoshopping history to suit your preferred political outcomes. I don't care if you like the Democrats, Republicans or Constitution Party when you do it. It's just plain lying to yourself.

[brianh]

No lawyer, but a few (too few) justices. It's why the New Deal held for as long as it did, and why social/low-income protection projects have stood up to attempts to take them down in the court. As for your suit, you realize that you're once again arguing -for- greater protection? The corporation you are fighting against is -not- getting the same treatment as you, for roughly the same reason as forbidding the rich and poor alike from sleeping under bridges isn't equal protection; it fails to take into account that the corporation can consolidate their copyright law department, keep people on staff to deal with multiple issues at once, and have more expert knowledge? There SHOULD be more protection for you; it would be healthier for our economy, especially if you had control over your IP. You're not going to GET that, and certainly not get it paid for, by arguing that the rich-- who benefit more from all of those conditions-- should not have counterbalances and taxation to help levelling the playing field.

The contract was the Boeing vs. EADS dispute; the governor of Alabama, and, I believe, a few other southern states argued for EADS/Northrup: http://blog.aflcio.org/2009/10/24/tanker-contract-would-create-44000-jobs-in-united-states/ and while those contracts were in their states partially, many more of the jobs went to France, which is heavily subsidizing EADS; ironically, they do have unions for that; I should have split non-union and foreign, since the jobs in Alabama are fewer in number and lower in pay than the ones in Washington would have been, and much more of the money would have stayed here.

When I said 'green corporations' I meant green as in output. I want R&D done for cleaner-- actual clean, as opposed to "clean" coal-- industrial and power technology. Different thing.

And, frankly, yeah, I think that a major buyout and bigger regulations would have been better. So did a large chunk of the democratic party; there are, after all, more Progressives than Blue Dogs. It's the bipartisanship fetish that's giving the Blue Dogs and Senate Conservative Dems more power than their membership.

Tip was hounded out of office. Gingrich was protected before and after; it made a big impression on me in high school/early college. I often wished I could have voted in the '96 elections; I -should- have campaigned louder.

Reno fought with Starr in every way she could, but the simple fact is that he went fishing as much as he could, and looked for any point he possibly could.

To be honest... all of this is reminding me of the sports player distraction above. We're getting into false equivalence points again and again... and it seems to be deliberately moving away from the point of the original post: "Again again again: Taxes are your membership fee for civilization." The reason for a progressive income tax (and an estate tax, and taxing returns from investment) is-- among other things-- that the wealthy have much more power on their side from the existence of their wealth, and society's wealth is currently being funnelled directly towards them from all sides.

[peachtales.livejournal.com]

Having personally become part of the crumbling underpinning of the repubs' dream castle I am still constantly surprised that they just don't get it.
You wanna know what also really gets to me? I've worked since I moved back to the US 16.5 years ago, and hence have paid into unemployment coffers for that same time, but they may deny my claim because of what the company that let me go says. THAT is really idiotic.

[roycalbeck.livejournal.com]

Same problem here. I had to fight in unemployment court to get my benefits, because my previous employer claimed I had been "fired for cause" when in fact they'd conducted a mass layoff. The department I worked for isn't even there anymore.

[laurel-potter.livejournal.com]

There's about 300 million people in the US, right? If Trump, Buffet and some other billionaires would just give a million dollars each, that would give the economy a kick start.

I know it doesn't work like that, but some people having billions of dollars and other people having nothing is just not right.

[roycalbeck.livejournal.com]

Actually, they'd each have to give a billion to make an impact. $1B / 300M is three bucks and change. Total up all our actual billionaires (people, not companies), and you'd still get less than the $300 Bush tax refund check. You STILL only get the muffler while they get the Lexus.