5 ms·

""All that this graph reflects is that as taxes were decreased for the upper %1 over the past half century, they were increased on everybody else." False." I

by sdurkin 18y ago

""All that this graph reflects is that as taxes were decreased for the upper %1 over the past half century, they were increased on everybody else." False." I have to disagree. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 (as well as the cut of 64) disproportionately affected the lower income brackets. As a matter of record, tax rates are higher for the lower income brackets, and lower for higher income brackets than at any other point in US history. To cite wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Reform_Act_of_1986#Income_tax_rates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Reform_Act_of_1986#Income_t... "The top tax rate was lowered from 50% to 28% while the bottom rate was raised from 11% to 15% - the only time in the history of the U.S. income tax (which dates back to the passage of the Revenue Act of 1862) that the top rate was reduced and the bottom rate increased concomitantly." "The "rich", the top 1%, are the prime drivers of wealth creation. They are the reason GDP grows faster than population growth." Anyone who has capital gains from the labor of others. It is misleading to say that they are responsible for this growth themselves. Their wealth is invested in those in other income brackets, and used to drive up GDP. There's nothing morally wrong with this system. I agree that incentives for the upper %1 have a disproportionate effect on GDP. That said, from an economic perspective, I happen to believe that the Laffer curve has a very steep right side, and that we are to the left of the peak. This means that by raising rates, more revenue can be collected. For example, the 1981 tax cut did not improve revenue collection. I believe that we should raise rates in order to pay for progressive social programs. The upper %1 have benefitted from not only their skill and ability to drive wealth creation, but also a good deal of luck. Progressivism is a form of social insurance. It is an acknowledgment that perhaps, through no fault of my own, I might have been born poor, or with skills not suited to the modern economy. It is the understanding that in the richest nation on earth, no one should want for food, shelter, or healthcare, no matter what their ability to contribute. This is not rhetoric. It is a judgement of values, and an assertion of a logical argument. Think of it in terms of human capital. Those born into poverty today lack the access to crucial resources, such as education, to contribute to the economy to their full potential. It is a colossal waste of human resources to allow these conditions to continue. Imagine if Bill Gates had been born in Compton instead of Seattle.

ivankirigin 18y ago
"It is a judgement of values" The fundamental disagreement between libertarians and progressives is that libertarians do not find the values of a mob/majority justify violence upon a minority. I used the word violence carefully: you don't pay your taxes, an armed man will come to put you in a pen for years. The problem with asserting positive rights, versus freedom from oppression, is that they come at a cost to someone else. For example, asserting a right to health care is asserting the right to take from a health care provider. "As a matter of record, tax rates are higher for the lower income brackets, and lower for higher income brackets than at any other point in US history." Tax rates are still higher for higher income earners. They make more, and a flat percentage would proportionally cover their wealth, but you insist on a _higher_ percentage. That is pretty hard to justify, especially considering the benefit of government is diminished proportional to increased income.
- sdurkin 18y ago
  Ah, now we've come to the point of it. "The fundamental disagreement between libertarians and progressives is that libertarians do not find the values of a mob/majority justify violence upon a minority." The power of the state rests upon the willful consent of the governed. The constitutional structure protects minorities from the tyranny of the majority, and as such, when it is in the good of society, that force can be used, including to collect taxes. "The problem with asserting positive rights, versus freedom from oppression, is that they come at a cost to someone else. For example, asserting a right to health care is asserting the right to take from a health care provider." Here's the fallacy. Its not a zero sum game, and the market isn't an omnipotent distributer of goods. For example, asserting a right to health care provides more output for the society, as it takes away from the costs of untreated illnesses. Some things are common to all, and ensuring that everyone has access enhances total welfare. Surely you must see that defense spending is justified? "They make more, and a flat percentage would proportionally cover their wealth, but you insist on a _higher_ percentage." This is a form of social insurance. Just as defense spending insures us against risk of attack, social programs insure us against the risk of bad luck. Imagine yourself behind the veil of ignorance, before you were born, before you knew that you would occupy that top %1. Now design a tax system. You have to take into account the decreasing marginal utility of income. $100 additional dollars to a person making several million a year has far less utility to them than $100 additional dollars to a person making twenty thousand a year. Not to mention the political folks tell me that inequality is the chief cause of revolution. If we look at this from a practical perspective, we see that times of extremely low taxation and large amounts of inequality caused a breakdown in the market system. Those who accumulate most of the wealth become a law unto themselves and ensure oligopolistic control over industry. Too much of this and in Russia the farmers get their pitchforks and the mob takes to the streets. Here you get the New Deal. Some socialism is necessary to stave off communism.

by sdurkin 18y ago

ivankirigin 18y ago

"It is a judgement of values" The fundamental disagreement between libertarians and progressives is that libertarians do not find the values of a mob/majority justify violence upon a minority. I used the word violence carefully: you don't pay your taxes, an armed man will come to put you in a pen for years. The problem with asserting positive rights, versus freedom from oppression, is that they come at a cost to someone else. For example, asserting a right to health care is asserting the right to take from a health care provider. "As a matter of record, tax rates are higher for the lower income brackets, and lower for higher income brackets than at any other point in US history." Tax rates are still higher for higher income earners. They make more, and a flat percentage would proportionally cover their wealth, but you insist on a _higher_ percentage. That is pretty hard to justify, especially considering the benefit of government is diminished proportional to increased income.

sdurkin 18y ago
Ah, now we've come to the point of it. "The fundamental disagreement between libertarians and progressives is that libertarians do not find the values of a mob/majority justify violence upon a minority." The power of the state rests upon the willful consent of the governed. The constitutional structure protects minorities from the tyranny of the majority, and as such, when it is in the good of society, that force can be used, including to collect taxes. "The problem with asserting positive rights, versus freedom from oppression, is that they come at a cost to someone else. For example, asserting a right to health care is asserting the right to take from a health care provider." Here's the fallacy. Its not a zero sum game, and the market isn't an omnipotent distributer of goods. For example, asserting a right to health care provides more output for the society, as it takes away from the costs of untreated illnesses. Some things are common to all, and ensuring that everyone has access enhances total welfare. Surely you must see that defense spending is justified? "They make more, and a flat percentage would proportionally cover their wealth, but you insist on a _higher_ percentage." This is a form of social insurance. Just as defense spending insures us against risk of attack, social programs insure us against the risk of bad luck. Imagine yourself behind the veil of ignorance, before you were born, before you knew that you would occupy that top %1. Now design a tax system. You have to take into account the decreasing marginal utility of income. $100 additional dollars to a person making several million a year has far less utility to them than $100 additional dollars to a person making twenty thousand a year. Not to mention the political folks tell me that inequality is the chief cause of revolution. If we look at this from a practical perspective, we see that times of extremely low taxation and large amounts of inequality caused a breakdown in the market system. Those who accumulate most of the wealth become a law unto themselves and ensure oligopolistic control over industry. Too much of this and in Russia the farmers get their pitchforks and the mob takes to the streets. Here you get the New Deal. Some socialism is necessary to stave off communism.