dagblog - Comments for "The Rich Never Expire"

"Part of the disparate

Michael Maiello — Sat, 20 Oct 2012 22:30:35 +0000

"Part of the disparate reactions has to do, I think, with how Social Security and Medicare were deliberately set up and are widely understood by the public--as social insurance programs where you pay in to assure that you receive benefits when you are of age. At some level--I don't know how conscious--people understand that to sustain these programs enough money has to be paid in to fund them."

I think you're right about this. I think that people get the basics and they like these programs. And, it makes sense -- the general tax revenue can be used for anything, after all. Social Security and Medicare taxes pay for distinct and popular benefits.

The problem I think we're having is that we have a very rich and influential class in our politics who do not need those benefits at all. A tycoon can provide for themselves to such an extent that an $1,100 a month check does not even qualify as play money. To them, all taxes are merely taxes and they have exported that notion to the rest of society.

Obama's payroll tax cut

AmericanDreamer — Sat, 20 Oct 2012 15:45:51 +0000

In reply to The Rich Never Expire

Obama's payroll tax cut disproportionately benefits people who make less than $120,000 a year. It had a set expiration date, which Obama extended, but only temporarily. It is now once again up for renewal and this is not a major issue at all. There's no fight at all. Yes, Republicans will go into the midterm elections accusing Democrats of having "raised taxes on the middle class," but they seem quite comfortable, in the main, with letting the payroll tax cut expire (and so do most Democrats, and all of the centrists).

Part of the disparate reactions has to do, I think, with how Social Security and Medicare were deliberately set up and are widely understood by the public--as social insurance programs where you pay in to assure that you receive benefits when you are of age. At some level--I don't know how conscious--people understand that to sustain these programs enough money has to be paid in to fund them. If that amount of money going in is cut temporarily it still needs to be restored one way or the other, by restoring the payroll tax rate or raising revenue in some other way.

Whereas other tax rates not tied to specific social insurance commitments seem much more likely to be perceived as "fair game", open to significant revision as a part of the give and take of political process debates about what are the appropriate "other" (non-social insurance, that is) core or important purposes and functions of government.

Keeping the holiday rate for folks below a certain income level would reduce employer disincentives to hire people at or below that wage level, while increasing employer incentives to reduce the wages of those currently and potentially employed at just above that level. I don't know if retaining the current payroll holiday for folks below a certain income level, while raising the $120 cap somewhat at the current payroll tax rate, or raising that cap by more but with diminishing rates on income above the current cap, is an approach that could stabilize the program's finances, reducing the doubts about its long-term prospects many Republicans in particular have worked so hard to instill, and without undercutting the durability of its political support. Nonstarter with a Republican president or Congress, that's for sure. Sounds like an approach the Progressive caucus in Congress might like but until the widespread and growing public concern and anger about growing inequality gets translated into more votes in Congress that's not going to happen.

Your second paragraph is

A Guy Called LULU — Fri, 19 Oct 2012 21:59:51 +0000

In reply to The thing is when people have

Your second paragraph is encouraging.

The thing is when people have

ocean-kat — Fri, 19 Oct 2012 21:31:54 +0000

In reply to Assuming that the country

The thing is when people have the information that we have they end up doing the same things we would. (if my assumptions about most of dagblog posters are right)

I've read several articles about studies of ordinary people, self declared republicans, democrats, and independents, given a chance to balance the budget. With a simple to use program where they could move numbers around with information about those programs. In the end they overwhelmingly cut defense massively, raise taxes on the rich, and raise taxes on themselves. Yes, they even raise taxes on themselves to preserve SS and medicare.

Unfortunately people are not directly confronted with the numbers so they can believe the myths and lies that we can cut taxes, raise defense spending, and balance the budget all at the same time.

If Obama does veto a full

NCD — Fri, 19 Oct 2012 21:15:46 +0000

In reply to Well, you talk about raising

If Obama does veto a full extension of the tax cuts, insisting on not extending the cuts over $250k of income, it will be interesting to see how the deficit howling Teabircher Base reacts.

They don't keep track or give a damn on the cost of the Decider's 'war of choice', but they do keep track of their wallets. My guess is the bawling will be immediate and loud, and the GOP will cut a deal pronto, the rich can pay more. The big question though is will O be re-elected, and if so, will he follow through on the veto threat.

Assuming that the country

A Guy Called LULU — Fri, 19 Oct 2012 21:09:31 +0000

In reply to Well, you talk about raising

Assuming that the country does in fact need more revenue to carry on the social services we support and it all comes to a showdown and the only choice is to let all cuts expire or leave all cuts in place. Suppose the choice were yours. What would you do?

This is well thought out; I

Richard Day — Fri, 19 Oct 2012 21:08:55 +0000

In reply to The Rich Never Expire

This is well thought out; I assume you have changed your nutritional regimen. haahaha

This is my Dayly Line of the Day Award for this here Dagblog Site given to all of you from all of me:

In practice, this doesn't work. People get used to tax rates over time. If my effective rate gets cut from 20% to 17%, I'm happy that first year. If it stays at 17% for another five years, I'm now complaining that 17% is too high. That's just how humans are. Even if you tell me, you paid 20% this year, you'll pay 17% for the next five but we're going back to 20% in year six, I'm still aghast in year six because I've internalized the notion that 17% is more than enough, thank you. The mind's baseline does not match the CBO baseline

This message is of note from a microeconomic view as well as a macronomic view.

When Kennedy changed the rate from 90% to 70%, this meant something on both fronts.

Of course there were many folks who were not morons who could manage to cheat the system and pay real taxes on a 40% level, etc....

But when you fight for a rate of 39% like w bush and you decrease that rate to 34% or whatever, the cheaters end up paying 17%.

The nation loses and the individual just finds gold.

When w bush's captialistic oligarchist plan went into action the apologists said:

HE THIS IS ONLY GONNA LAST TEN YEARS!

I said bullshite when he did it.

But when those ten years pass with crooks like Allen and a score of other Senators are still standing a decade later; OH YOU ARE GOING TO RAISE TAXES if you do not keep on decreasing taxes.

I was struck when MSNBC replayed a short interview with Ben Stein (a man I have despised for three decades) in which Ben said, HEY WE HAVE TO RAISE TAXES ON THE SUPER RICH!

Tax policy is one of the most important tools of the Federal Government in which it might lay down real policy.

If we let Wall Street pay out bonuses of tens of millions of dollars to salesmen and we allow signing bonuses amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars to one man who 'oversees' a company without any repercussions, what in the hell happens?

The Government loses any power it might have had in channeling where those bonuses go!

Taibbi might note that those bonuses should just be taxed at 90% which is where I am at right now.

But at least those felons should be taxed at 100% when they 'outsource' to foreign countries and when they hide their capital in Switzerland or the Caymans for chrissakes!

Government has lost control over the capitalization of this country. These felons are allowed to hedge their bets off shore and they should be prosecuted and fined and taxed.

the end

I think this is largely the

Michael Maiello — Fri, 19 Oct 2012 20:43:33 +0000

In reply to Well, you talk about raising

I think this is largely the problem with taxation in general. You go to work, you don't necessarily like it, but you get this paycheck and then some of it is taken away. You put up with it because you know, deep down, that we have a society to build together, but it always feels like a burden. And if the burden is 30%, you grow to resent that burden. But if it's 5%, you grow to resent that burden too.

It sucks to have the flu but it's better than having a mild cold. But for three to seven days, having either one seems about as equally intolerable. I think this is the wrong way to think about taxes. It's certainly unhealthy and leads to that persecution complex that so many Americans seem to enjoy, but there you have it.

Well, you talk about raising

DF — Fri, 19 Oct 2012 20:27:56 +0000

In reply to Maybe you didn't understand

Well, you talk about raising taxes on everyone in the short term, which is what letting the Bush tax rates expire would amount to. Additionally, you bring up the trope of "shared sacrifice," even though it was the power elite who got bailed out. Like the false equivalence that permeates news media, this seemingly fair-minded notion is one that has come to embody that vast and growing disparity between those that rule and those that are ruled. "Shared sacrifice" is now essentially ironic in that it really only ever applies to the plebs and never to the plutocrats.

Beyond that, I'm not sure I buy the notion that the case just hasn't been made well enough yet. The President has been talking about this for the last four years. It's fair. It's right. It's been viable in the past. Any fool can look at the relevant charts for the last three or four decades and see what's happened. And it's even popular nationally. The case, it would seem, has been made.

The problem is not making the case. The problem is that Mitt Romney was partially correct in his 47% analysis. There really is a hard percentage of Americans that will not change their minds no matter what. The trouble is that they support Mitt Romney and the GOP policy mix. I know these people. Even if you get the most reasonable among them to listen for a bit, they'll be jumping right back into the talk radio bubble tomorrow.

These people aren't really persuadable. The point cannot then be to just somehow do a shinier, happier job of telling them how wrong they have it. They're wrong on purpose. They're wrong with intent and conviction. It's not about convincing them of anything. It's about defeating them, failing that constraining them, failing that.. waiting for them to die first.

Whoops, meant as a reply to

A Guy Called LULU — Fri, 19 Oct 2012 19:21:29 +0000

In reply to Maybe you didn't understand

Whoops, meant as a reply to DF