dagblog - Comments for "Greed...It's Not Just For Wall Street Any More"

Well, to a certain extent,

Michael Maiello — Sat, 13 Nov 2010 01:07:41 +0000

In reply to Well, it certainly becomes a

Well, to a certain extent, wealth is meaningless if we don't view it in a relative way. I mean, why does it matter that Paris Hilton is way richer than I am? Only because her wealth means she can go places I can't, do things I can't, own things I can't and basically enjoy freedoms that I don't get to enjoy.

Relative wealth pretty much only matters because we know we all only get one shot at life as humans on Earth and that some of us suffer, some of us struggle and others of us get to party the whole way through. If that unfairness isn't important then we have no argument at all for progressive taxation.

Well, it certainly becomes a

DF — Sat, 13 Nov 2010 00:10:00 +0000

In reply to people "feel" rich or poor

Well, it certainly becomes a much more difficult issue to tackle if you accept that it's not something that is restricted to people in certain income brackets, ie that it's just in our nature. Personally, I think the right thing for us to do is to understand that people do this and why. As far as political leadership goes, there needs to be a willingness to put things into perspective. "I feel poor" isn't a basis for policy. The numbers are what matter there, but the task of leaders is to use those numbers to buttress a narrative that speaks to other things that people "feel" - like that things should be "fair." There's a very compelling case to be made that it's perfectly fair for this guy and his cohorts to pay more. Of course, you will still end up with Sean Hannity accusing of being you a Marxist, but that's no reason not to both forcefully make the argument and pursue the policy.

At one point not too long ago, people used to argue that monarchy "felt" ordained by a higher power. Hardly anyone accepts that now.

people "feel" rich or poor

AmericanDreamer — Fri, 12 Nov 2010 23:55:12 +0000

In reply to I remember reading this on

people "feel" rich or poor not because they looked at broad data about income, but because they looked around them.

Yes, that appears to be how this works. What I wonder is how does this change? Does a President getting heat for letting these tax cuts expire try to remind the public--without demonizing people for being financially successful (my beef expressed above is with the insular, whiny attitude of the prof above, not the fact that he is financially successful)--that people above such-and-such income level represent x percentage of the population and are being taxed at higher rates because they are most able to pay? Maybe in a country where saying "I was never any good at math" isn't taken as almost a badge of honor. I don't know.

I remember reading this on

DF — Fri, 12 Nov 2010 23:29:00 +0000

In reply to Greed...It's Not Just For Wall Street Any More

I remember reading this on DeLong's blog. I can't remember whether or not he says this explicitly, but research supports the idea that is at the core of the story he tells, which is that people "feel" rich or poor not because they looked at broad data about income, but because they looked around them. I'm not supporting this guy's position and feel that his argument is symptomatic of a view that, while prevalent, does not amount to a plan for governance, but this is not something that only Mr. Henderson, or even only the rich in general, is prone to.

I vote to let all the tax

A Guy Called LULU — Fri, 12 Nov 2010 23:20:15 +0000

In reply to Greed...It's Not Just For Wall Street Any More

I vote to let all the tax cuts expire. Why not? How bad would it hurt those directly affected? Obviously middle class tax payers still have jobs. How important are the billions that the middle class tax cuts would cost? Are they as important as those fungible billions we want from the upper percentile earners? We keep talking about how good the nation did under Clinton's tax rates. We say that a tax cut does very little to stimulate growth so there must be a corollary to that. Inflation has been low. Those who have lost work aren't paying income tax anyway, they won't be hurt further by a rate change. We all agree that the deficit is a problem.

For the political side, I would have Obama promise to veto any tax cut to the rich, who do not need it, and to say that if congress thinks the middle class needs a tax break to send him a bill for the middle class. If they are determined to make the rich even richer by including them, then send a veto proof bill.

There are good arguments for a progressive tax rates. They should be made and be part of the conversation. Simply demonizing the rich, whether they deserve it or not, just to justify taking more from them, is too simplistic. It strikes a lot of people wrong.

Hmm. I suppose it's

AmericanDreamer — Fri, 12 Nov 2010 23:04:46 +0000

In reply to I read the whole sad story on

Hmm. I suppose it's inconceivable that the professor might have been led to reflect, in a most unrequested and rough but perhaps salutary way, on the many blessings of his life? And that perhaps he was being a bit whiny, selfish, and self-pitying? That it might not be the worst thing that could happen to him if he ended up paying a bit more in taxes? That perhaps what he most needs to do is get over himself and come away from the experience a more broad-minded and empathetic person instead of a more fearful one?

It's as conceivable to me he might have had any of those reactions as that he would have been quietly persuaded by sweet reason to see things the way the people attacking him apparently do on this matter.

My father grew up during the Great Depression. His parents were small business owners, never close to wealthy, in a small town in upstate New York and they struggled as most did then. He conveyed to me his sense at the time that if something wasn't done to help people there could really be a revolution in this country. He did not see that as a good thing. He was deeply frightened at the possibility, as, I think, anyone who feels they have anything to lose--and in this society that's most of us--would be. His conclusion--quite wise as well as humane, and prescient for someone his age at the time--was that there had to be more sharing at a societal level, with jobs programs and the like.

We are not at that point in this country. Not yet. But the long-term data on income not going up with productivity--which is supposed to be the fair deal the worker gets in this country for performance--the signs all around including the political instability and the unrest manifested in last week's elections, are there for all to see. I don't know what it will take, if anything, to get some attention paid, as Willy Loman's wife might have put it.

How does someone like this professor, and others like him in this country, get shaken from his narrow-minded and obtuse self-absorption (I take it you would not call it that; I would.)? I don't know. I'm sure the answer depends on the individual and that for some people, there probably isn't anything that will have that effect. And it's possible you're right, that having a bunch of strangers confront him in the way they did might turn him into a lifelong Republican.

I don't know where all this goes. I have a pretty clear sense of where things have been going in this country for quite awhile now. Sweet reason, appeals to peoples' better natures, hoping and praying, and things like elections do not seem to have had much effect in getting the point across so far to the powers that be. Perhaps a more assertive approach is called for. Not uncivil, not rude, I don't condone that. No. Just more assertive. I am not at all a confrontational person by habit. But all the things we get taught growing up to believe will work--what I am observing is that they are not working. So I am rethinking my own commitments these days. For reasons that I think of as conservative as well as liberal--but prefer to think of as just sensible and humane. The way my dad saw things a long time ago.

See David Seaton's blog

cmaukonen — Fri, 12 Nov 2010 22:59:13 +0000

In reply to I know this'll tick some

See David Seaton's blog above.

Ultimately I believe in

Michael Maiello — Fri, 12 Nov 2010 22:42:58 +0000

In reply to Doesn't seem anyone wants to

Ultimately I believe in better living through chemistry, technology, travel and the arts. Those things cost money. They also aren't available to a lot of people. Somewhere along the line we do have to make some choices. Luxury cars for a few while the majority do without? Or retirement, health care and educational security so everyone has a shot? But these are tougher questions than they seem when we get specific. The guy says "if you raise my taxes, I'll fire my gardener." Part of me says "hmmph, do your own damned gardening like everyone else." Of course, I'm not his gardener.

I think that most people

we are stardust — Fri, 12 Nov 2010 22:36:29 +0000

In reply to Oh, I agree with you. The

I think that most people don't realize your taxes would increase just on your earnings above 250,000, either, not on your entire earnings.

Doesn't seem anyone wants to

anna am — Fri, 12 Nov 2010 22:01:52 +0000

In reply to I know this'll tick some

Doesn't seem anyone wants to touch this question, Destor. But just remember, there are the poor and there are those who are politically motivated to claim poverty in solidarity and they sometimes sniff at any kind of consumption.

Yet a friend of mine, who is the most vehement in this kind of solidarity among the people I know, has Gaggenau appliances.

Go figure.