Hot News!
• Giving Thanks and the Holiday Season Kick-Off
Contact Us
v mail, fax: (214) 481-6464
e mail: click here
On today's date in The Beacon archives, we published:
•Invisible Cincinnati Residents (2007)•Hip-Hop solves problems for Cincinnati’s youth (2006)
Events
 Saturday, December 6 6th annual St. Nick Day Sale
IJPC is located in Peaslee Neighborhood Center at 215 E. 14th Street, Cincinnati OH 45202. We will be selling fair-trade items from all over the world. Your purchase helps benefit artisans from around the world as well as IJPC! |
Tuesday, December 16 CeaseFire Cincinnati, 3rd Tuesday, 5:30 pm Want to learn more about CeaseFire? Attend our monthly Community Coalition Meetings Held at the Avondale Pride Center, 3520 Burnet, CeaseFire Cincinnati: The Campaign to STOP the Shooting (513) 675 - 4102 http://www.ceasefirecincinnati.org |
Wednesday, December 17 Monthly meeting - IJPC General Peace Committee, 7 pm - 3rd Wednesday of every month - Peaslee Neighborhood Center, 513-579-8547, All are Welcome! |
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Confronting COAST: Democrat Greg Harris on how the anti-taxers get it wrong
Posted by The Dean of Cincinnati
Photo courtesy of here.
Recently, we posted this interview with Christopher Finney, where he framed the anti-tax ideology of COAST in the context of poverty and the working class. To further the discussion, The Cincinnati Beacon is pleased to present a rebuttal by Democrat Greg Harris. The Beacon identified four key points articulated by Finney, asking Harris to respond with detail. Harris concludes the discussion by responding to a point of his own choice. Enjoy!
The Dean: Finney says “big oppressive government” is bad because it costs a lot in taxes and it hurts people who need help the most. He then frames the issue like this: “For those of us in the middle, the question becomes whether greater central direction of the economy (i.e., higher taxes, spending or regulation) is preferred over the free market (i.e., lower taxes, spending and regulation). I and the COAST Board generally opt for the latter. “Is this a fair representation of the choices available, or do you have another perspective? Overall, how do you respond to this point?
The response perpetuates the myth of the “free market” versus “big government.” This is really a false binary, as the two actually have a dynamic relationship, and in a capitalist country like ours, the debate tends to fall along the lines of the extent one should either reinforce the other or keep the other in check. (By contrast, European nations debate and have representatives advocating entirely different government systems, socialism, communism, etc.)
But when most conservatives (in our American context) worship at the altar of the free market, I have to ask: “free” for whom?
When Bush became president, he destroyed a white hot economy with his so-called “free market” policies. Republican tax policy essentially amounted to class warfare against working class America that resulted in a sizable redistribution of wealth to the very top. For example, households in the top 1 percent of earnings, which have an average income of approx. $1.2 million saw their effective individual tax rates drop to 20 percent in 2004 from 24 percent in 2000. Their rate of tax decrease was double the rate of tax cuts for most of middle America. And middle America’s modest decrease has been more than offset by skyrocketing fuel costs, inflation, wage stagnation, healthcare costs (health inflation was reigned in under Clinton), higher interest rates, and for many, the foreclosure crisis.
To boot, according to the libertarian Cato Institute, we now give away over $100 billion annually in corporate welfare, including to the oil companies that are generating record profits (just look at Exxon’s latest quarterly report).
But these direct costs are exacerbated when linked to the indirect casualties of the “free market, low tax, limited government” economic model that is in reality is not free, doesn’t limit government (but shifts its influencers), and doesn’t in real term ease the tax burden but, rather, shifts expenses to everyday people (via higher interest rates, etc.).
A couple quick examples from the current reign of (so-called) conservative economic policies:
1. Our nation’s deficit has skyrocketed. When you pass massive tax cuts without a way to pay for them, the result is major deficits. Deficits are essentially tax increases on the next generation. So conservative short sighted economic policy has dire long-term consequences that will cost our children dearly. Moreover, it has made our dollar and our nation economically vulnerable. Our greatest creditors are also our greatest competitors. Just what would America have to give up, for example, if China threatens to stop investing in the dollar? It is scandal how conservatives have wrecked the fundamentals of our economy and made us vulnerable to other nations. I wish bumper sticker patriots would embrace a deeper level patriotism that would not have allowed this to have happened.
2. Free marketers love free trade, but free trade has been devastatingly costly. Our trade deficit has actually skyrocketed under free trade agreements. Today it fast approaches one TRILLION dollars (as spoken in my Dr. Evil voice)! So America is dramatically consuming far more foreign goods—often goods manufactured cheaply in third world countries—then foreigners are buying our goods. So who benefits? Certainly not the majority of American workers. Certainly not the American economy (yes, there are exceptions, but they are trounced by the rule). The primary beneficiary is the multi-national corporations who are empowered to reign supreme globally, set up offshore headquarters, sub-contract with third world manufactures that then subcontract cheap labor, reap massive profits, only to create jobs that are only a few degrees shy of indentured servitude. This is part of Bill Clinton’s legacy. America for many decades put in place labor and environmental protections for our workers. Clinton could’ve leveraged free trade as a force to spread these protections globally. But he instead sold out. You don’t like the labor and environmental safeguards of the first world? Then simply export your labor and supply chain to countries that don’t enforce them. You’ll still be called an American company.
The Dean: After further discussing his view of the two options available when thinking about the tax environment, Finney states: “So, as I see it (i) less government and lower taxes are generally better for the poor and working class you describe and (ii) Hamilton County and Ohio are ‘tax hell’ for businesses and individuals, meaning that rapacious and oppressive governments are creating tremendous misery for the very folks big-government advocates claim to want to help. “ Presumably, as a Democrat, you are one of the “big government advocates” who is “creating tremendous misery” for the people you claim to want to help. What can you say to dispute such a conclusion?
“[L]ess government and lower taxes are generally better for the poor and working class you describe.” Well, not really. Tax policy generally isn’t what elevates the poor to the ranks of the middle class. In most cases, educational opportunity is the great equalizer. Low income Americans pay little or nothing in income taxes. President Reagan pioneered the Earned Income Tax Credit so that the working poor who don’t pay income taxes could still benefit from some form of stimulus when they weren’t eligible for tax cuts. Nixon actually proposed a negative income tax for this population. The working poor and even working class tend to pay far more in payroll taxes (FICA) which, over time, pays them back when social security and Medicare become available to them. That said, I would love to see us waive the payroll tax on the first $10,000 of income, which would amount to a real tax cut for two-thirds of Americans, while liftingg the cap that currently prohibits paychecks from being taxed after you pass $2000,000 in income. This would make the payroll tax more progressive and ensure social security’s long term solvency.
The Dean: Finney states: “Unquestionably, the Lottery is nothing more than a tax on the very poorest, stupidest citizens in our society. Yet, when was the last time you heard a politician suggest opposing this terribly regressive, oppressive tax on poor people? Never. Why, because they are wed to the notion of helping people with big government (and the attaboys and campaign contributions that come with) without the slightest desire to really consider the impact on the people they claim to be ‘helping.’ State Lotteries are a terrible and cynical attack on the poorest of our citizens and no one, absolutely no one cares about them, not one political party, not one politician. From an economic perspective, this analysis about the Lottery is indisputably true. If so, why won’t one single, solitary person stand up and at least say something about it, much less do something about it?” As a Democrat, should you be speaking against the Lottery? Or is this a red herring by COAST? Please explain.
I hate the lottery. Let me use an analogy to explain my views. Earlier I spoke of our deficits, and I believe deficit spending (save for crisis circumstances) is a monument to political cowardice. I believe that genuine public servants either need to make the spending cuts necessary to cover the costs of tax cuts, or they need to make the case for raising taxes when they want to expand spending in some area. But they do neither. Instead, they allow deficits, and dodge the tough choices. So-called conservatives like McCain disingenuously decry pork-barrel spending that, while costly, are pennies against what drives our federal budget. If he genuinely wanted to eliminate our deficit (which he claims he does) while at the same time financing our wasteful mistake of a war, then he would need to go after entitlements. But do you really think he’ll slash social security, Medicare, veterans benefit, etc.?! Of course not. He’ll spew free market rhetoric, but like most that do, he doesn’t mean it.
Analogously, I feel the same about state-sponsored lotteries. Politicians do not have the courage to raise revenue to fund critical needs like education and infrastructure, so they support lotteries. Yes, lotteries in many ways amount to a tax on the poor, as does other gambling. I do not think gambling and lotteries should be made illegal because I do not support our becoming a nanny state that imposes on people’s free will. But I think it is a shitty vehicle to generate revenue for the state.
The Dean: Near the end of the discussion, Finney concludes: “Lower taxes and responsible spending benefit everyone. This is not a hard concept to understand—just difficult to follow it with principle year after year (’the price of liberty is eternal vigilance’ ). If folks continue to fall under the sway of slick politicians, then they pay the price for doing so. We saw this in the jail tax campaign. The hunger of government for more tax money is unbounded, and the resulting policies to justify the extraction of that cash are many times worse than paying the tax itself.” After reading much of the COAST perspective, one might figure they find liberals to be nothing more than tax-hungry politicians who wish to benefit themselves at the expense of those they claim to help. What, if anything, can you offer in the way of proving the accusation demonstrably false?
Finney perpetuates a false dichotomy here, and it is the politicians who espouse the free market that are often the slickest. The fact of the matter is that government investment often triggers tremendous economic dividends. Some examples:
* The GI Bill largely opened higher education to the ranks of the non-wealthy for the first time in our nation’s history. This massive investment in college opportunity for veterans helped remake our economy.
* Eisenhower’s highway act dramatically modernized our nation’s infrastructure, as did FDR’s Public Works Administration. (How would the Southwest have emerged, for example, without Hoover Damn?)
* The internet was a Pentagon program until a young congressman named Al Gore saw its private sector potential and drafted legislation to bring it to the marketplace, the “information superhighway” (Gore’s phrase) remaking our economy. (It’s sad that the lazy media and conservatives bash Gore for his alleged comment about inventing the internet when in fact, he saw its potential and brought it to fruition).
Now we are at a moment in history when sizeable government investment is needed to remake our economy for the future.
For example, take the issue of energy independence and global warming. We can solve both problems at once, while at the same time transforming our economy by growing a domestic-based energy industry, creating legions of new jobs while driving down energy costs for most Americans.
It will require costly one-time investments, for example, to convert to wind energy in coastal, great lakes and plains states. (But not as costly as say, three months in Iraq.) But once this investment is made, it will harness something that is free and doesn’t harm our environment. (T. Boone Pickens is right on this one.) Wind energy will be dirt cheap for consumers, putting a good deal more money in their pockets at a time when home heating costs, etc., are burning holes in our rockets.
It would also require significant investment to bring solar energy to scale in sunshine states (the west, southwest, parts of the south), but like wind energy, once this is done, we will be tapping energy sources that are free.
Many automakers are now working furiously to bring hybrid, hydrogen and battery technologies to scale. But this will require reconfiguring the nation’s fuel supply . . . plug-in stations for battery operated cars, etc. Government incentives can accelerate this new energy infrastructure. Yes, this would come at some cost. But the cost is minimal when compared to the geopolitical and environmental costs of our dependency on foreign oil.
And take the issue of universal healthcare. Why do we need insurance companies serving as the fat, bloated middleman? They needlessly drive up costs. A single payer system or an efficient insurance system like Medicare spends far more on direct healthcare treatment than it does on administrative costs. And think of the economic dividends. Think what it would do for businesses to not have to pay up to 40% of their cost per employee on insurance. This money could be freed for new investment, and would definitely lead to wage/salary increases that would accelerate the economy. Our current healthcare system is imploding because so much is fleeced at so many layers of profiteering. For me, I support universal healthcare for moral reasons. But I think any bottom-line conservatives could support it for its economic dividend alone. I would rather pay for universal healthcare than corporate welfare, and universal healthcare—like energy independence—would ultimately pay for itself.
Finally, I’d like to address educational opportunity. When Clinton ran in 92, he rightly stressed that in a global economy, unskilled labor will go where labor is cheap. He pledged to massively investing in skilling up our nation’s workforce. But he largely abandoned this human capital agenda at a time when our nation could easily have afforded it. (His former Labor Secretary Robert Reich wrote a great book, Locked in the Cabinet, that addresses Clinton’s abandonment of this issue.) Think of the consequences for states like Ohio if we started retraining workers in their 20’s, 30’s and 40’s with the skills demanded by a technology-driven knowledge economy. Fifteen years later we’d have a highly skilled workforce instead of an aging, unskilled workforce in a state suffering with massive brain drain. A human capital agenda in the early 90’s would’ve had a similar positive and long-term impact on our economy to the GI Bill.
Sad to say, if you factor in the expense of all of the above, it wouldn’t cost much more than a year in Iraq.
The myth of the “tax and spend” liberal needs to be challenged, but too many progressives submit. The liberal, unlike the conservative, believes in investing in people in ways that are proactive. Investments in the economy, the environment, infrastructure, a safety net for the elderly and children, etc., all yield great dividends. The conservative always argues against such investment, but then we end up paying for the problems yielded from our neglect of the issues. An education is much cheaper then jail. A doctor’s visit is much cheaper than an emergency room visit. A college education pays for itself many times over.
The Dean: What issue (or issues) did Finney raise that I failed to highlight, that you find worthy of further thought? Please provide a quote and respond!
“As to Light Rail, the program was simply inefficient.”
COAST feels very proud about taking on transportation alternatives, but I think if they were really sincere about such matters then they would challenge mainstream transportation policy that essentially subsidizes urban sprawl. Indeed the costs of sprawling development are far greater than the cost of compact development and redevelopment. The Homebuilders Association also utilizes the “free market” rhetoric to its advantage when in fact massive public investment in such things as remediating septic systems, highways expansion, extending sewer lines, etc., makes them the biggest de facto welfare recipient in the region. Yeah, its “free market” for them; indeed, it’s more than free. But it is costly as hell for the rest of us.
• Share This Article!
Listen to this article
|  |
Register
Anonymous comments are allowed, but you can create an account above to stamp your name and to avoid typing the anti-spam code.
If you are not familiar with our rules for leaving comments, click here! The Cincinnati Beacon is not responsible for the contents of any comments. Comments do not represent the views of the moderators of The Cincinnati Beacon.
14 Aug 2008 at 03:14 pm | #
It’s good to hear from Harris again. I enjoyed his thoughts when he ran for Council. Let’s hope he’ll try again. Good thoughts above!
14 Aug 2008 at 04:16 pm | #
Clinton did sell out. At least one Democrat can admit that. I cant disagree as a former Repub.
14 Aug 2008 at 04:21 pm | #
Well said Greg.
Deregulation has brought us poisoned pet food, children’s toys filled with lead, the mortgage crisis and the resulting banking crisis, the greatest gap in incomes between the wealthiest 1% and the rest of us since the Robber Baron Era. The list goes on and on. Come to think of it, this is the New Robber Baron Era, isn’t it?
The galling thing is that these ‘anti-tax’ types scream the loudest for a government bailout when their investments, banks or businesses fail. It’s socialism for Wall Street.
14 Aug 2008 at 04:22 pm | #
Dean I can’t believe you threw Greg Harris a bunch of softball questions! You call that an interview? It looks more like a recruitment tool for socialists. (I’m joking of course!)
I think Greg makes some excellent points. I’ll have more thoughts later.
14 Aug 2008 at 04:50 pm | #
Reading these ramblings reminds me yet again why this guy loses every election he enters. Class warfar rhetoric works great in the union hall, but not in the mainstream. Give it up and get a clue.
14 Aug 2008 at 05:31 pm | #
.
Wow - GREAT JOB GREG !
Your passion brought out the profanity though.
The China syndrome is more profound when one realizes that; not only could they pull the plug on financing the economy, but, what would we do if they pulled the plug on our electronics ?
Sorry, a semi-conductor produced in China is against our home-land security.
Are we safe when the chip that operates our satellites where manufactured in China ?
The next war will be in space and done from a computer terminal.
Just some, radical food for thought ?
.
.
14 Aug 2008 at 06:32 pm | #
Beacon buster,
Cite one excerpt from Harris that is illogical, and deconstruct his argument. Just one. Thanks. Looking forward to it.
14 Aug 2008 at 06:53 pm | #
Beacon buster, is just a buster. He couldn’t make a decent argument to save his life so he just launchs a petty personal attack and then “cuts and runs”. If that’s all the brain power you can muster buster, save it for a movement.
14 Aug 2008 at 07:21 pm | #
Well said Greg, as always!
14 Aug 2008 at 07:51 pm | #
It’s sad that your have settled for Bush-style politics and policy. Shouldn’t our elected officials have enough knowledge, background and thoughtfulness to spell out these policies that have hurt the average American family? I think so. Shove your head back into your ass and keep it there.
14 Aug 2008 at 08:36 pm | #
Actually clintons last quarter of gdp was negative. The country had began a recession when GW took over. That is hardly “white hot”
How exactly is it redistribution when the money was the wealthy’s to begin with?
The earned income tax credit was started in 1975. It was expanded under many presidents including reagan since that. Lets keep up with the facts
You really dont understand conservatism at all. The economic dividend comes at the expense of innovation which conservatives support.
14 Aug 2008 at 10:57 pm | #
WOW!!!!!
What an interesting pair of interviews.
A couple of thoughts:
1. Do not link the current GOP administration to a conservative platform. George Bush is as conservative as Bill Clinton.
2. If one is able to put politics aside, can you not see how these two threads scream for the need of a rebirth of freedom in this country?
15 Aug 2008 at 07:17 am | #
Republican tax policy essentially amounted to class warfare against working class America that resulted in a sizable redistribution of wealth to the very top
How exactly is it redistribution when the money was the wealthy’s to begin with?
Bush’s tax policies re-concentrated wealth to the top. He reversed income tax policies implemented under Clinton that were far more progressive. Some of us believe income tax breaks should go to those that need the break the most--namely, middle America. Like most modern-day conservatives, you jump to the defense of millionaires, as if they were so hurting under Clinton and really needed the break. I don’t “bash” millionaires. I just don’t think we need to increase taxes on the next generation (via deficit spending) in order to give them $50,000 tax cuts. They are doing okay. But thanks for showing your true “trickle down” colors.
Also, saying Reagan “pioneered” EITC doesn’t mean he invented it. He expanded EITC, as did Clinton. Nixon got the ball roling with his proposal for a negative income tax, as stated in the column. The point is the Finney is incorrect to say tax cuts help the poor because the poor don’t pay income taxes. Nice try at a bait and switch on the real issue at hand.
As for conservative support for “innovation,” their piss poor record on green technology and assault on science leads me to beleive you are incredibly wrong.
15 Aug 2008 at 03:42 pm | #
Re-concentrated is correct. It was their money and now, they keep more of it, not less. Clinton’s policies are more progressive to you, but more regressive to those who were taxed at a higher rate.
It is government’s dependence on the taxpayers to raise enough capital to subsidize many unnecessary programs that places us in deficit spending. Providing only the most basic functions that the private sector should not, would greatly reduce the tax burden on your treasured middle class.
Conservatives come in many forms and grouping “support for innovation” with their “assault on science” is disingenuous at best.
Many bemoan all of the “corporate hand-outs” and how we should redistribute this the “working man”. Who is to say that those funds that would otherwise be spent on taxes are not being used to subsidize their R&D departments, which is generally the largest loss leader?
15 Aug 2008 at 09:26 pm | #
So what is all that money spent on anyway? You know, the tax dollars. What is the biggest thing the government spends on?
Social programs? Warfare?
15 Aug 2008 at 11:30 pm | #
To add to my post #3, we must have a government takeover of all economic functions. Power to the people. There will be no more profit, no more cooperations, no more paychecks, no more spending cash. You will work for the government which will provide for everyone.
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
Greg
16 Aug 2008 at 02:30 am | #
"Re-concentrated is correct. It was their money and now, they keep more of it, not less. Clinton’s policies are more progressive to you, but more regressive to those who were taxed at a higher rate”
And since we represent 98% of the population, and you (or an actual wealthy person) represent 2% of the population, it is in the greater interest to society that we tax the wealthiest at a higher rate. It’s called Progressive Taxation, and it’s the system of taxation that we use in this nation.
Even the Richest Man In America, Warren Buffet, agrees.
“Buffett Blasts System That Lets Him Pay Less Tax Than Secretary”
“Warren Buffett, the third-richest man in the world, has criticised the US tax system for allowing him to pay a lower rate than his secretary and his cleaner.
Speaking at a $4,600-a-seat fundraiser in New York for Senator Hillary Clinton, Mr Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52 billion (£26 billion), said: “The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you’re in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent.”
Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. Mr Buffett told his audience, which included John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley, and Alan Patricof, the founder of the US branch of Apax Partners, that US government policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation.
The comments are among the most signficant yet in a debate raging on both sides of the Atlantic about growing income inequality and how the super-wealthy are taxed.....”
16 Aug 2008 at 02:32 am | #
"Re-concentrated is correct. It was their money and now, they keep more of it, not less. Clinton’s policies are more progressive to you, but more regressive to those who were taxed at a higher rate”
And since we represent 98% of the population, and you (or an actual wealthy person) represent 2% of the population, it is in the greater interest to society that we tax the wealthiest at a higher rate. It’s called Progressive Taxation, and it’s the system of taxation that we use in this nation.
Even the Richest Man In America, Warren Buffet, fully agrees.
“Buffett Blasts System That Lets Him Pay Less Tax Than Secretary”
“Warren Buffett, the third-richest man in the world, has criticised the US tax system for allowing him to pay a lower rate than his secretary and his cleaner.
Speaking at a $4,600-a-seat fundraiser in New York for Senator Hillary Clinton, Mr Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52 billion (£26 billion), said: “The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you’re in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent.”
Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. Mr Buffett told his audience, which included John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley, and Alan Patricof, the founder of the US branch of Apax Partners, that US government policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation.
The comments are among the most signficant yet in a debate raging on both sides of the Atlantic about growing income inequality and how the super-wealthy are taxed.....”
16 Aug 2008 at 04:56 pm | #
It cant be a redistribution of wealth because the money already belonged to the wealthy. It was simply allowing them to keep more of what they earned. And I do support that fully. You can’t redistribute what was already there. It is redistribution of wealth to take there money and give it to the poor. Using the word redistribution is an old trick meant to infer that the money doesn’t belong where it is now because it was given to the rich by the government.
I suggest you look up the definition of “pioneered” and why honestly answer involve Reagan in the discussion at all. It was an attempt by you to bait and switch by you not I. Also you left out the name of the last president to sign an EIC raise into law- It was G W Bush. why did you leave that out?
what party is T Boone Pickens anyway? Oh yeah run back and check the amount of money he has given to swift boat veterans for truth and get back to me. Now he is one of the single biggest investors in green technology. And as far as the conservatives assault on science I can only guess what you mean and frankly don’t feel like it. If you care to propose a specific area in the constitutionally allowed federal government powers that conservatives are using to assault science i will set you right there also.
16 Aug 2008 at 10:39 pm | #
” . . . i will set you right there also.”
Look kid, you have a pretty cavalier attitude for someone who does not have the courage to put his name behind his opinions. To feign such cockiness and confidence while hiding behind an alias makes you look pretty pathetic.
“Pioneered” has many connotations, including, according to my dictionary, “forge,” “break new ground,” “lead the way,” etc. And I have some difficulty understanding how you could accuse me of bait and switch. Mr. Finney suggested lower taxes help poor people. I directly refuted this point by saying most poor people don’t pay income taxes and indeed most poor and working class Americans pay more in payroll tax than income tax. What’s the bait and switch here Mr. Anonymous? The point of EITC was to give incentives to the working poor who wouldn’t be eligible for income tax cuts.
I could respond by writing a dissertation about the state of scientific research under the present administration, and all the ways ideology was made to trump science. Even former Republican Governor Christine Todd Whittman, after resigning as head of EPA under Bush, spoke out against the amount of manipulation of scientific evidence in areas like global warming, among other examples. I know at least three books have been written in the last two years about how the Bush administration has systematically misled Americans on a wide range of scientific issues ranging from public health to the environment. Of course, these books were written by liberal pinko scientists who are conspiring to do evil things like clean our air.
Finally, I’ll end by addressing your first point. Middle class people and low income people earn their money too. The question becomes, when you ease tax burden, where do you prioritize in a time of “war” and escalating deficits. You obviously prefer the $50,000 tax breaks for people making over $1.2 million in annual income. I prefer tax breaks for the average American family whose median income, btw, is about $50,000.
I hope I “set you right,” whoever the hell “you” are.
17 Aug 2008 at 12:26 pm | #
It is redistribution of wealth when the profits “earned” were earned off the backs of powerless workers and consumers. They wealth “earned” came from somewhere --- us. The middle and lower class who do not share in the fruits of their labor despite their laboring being the only way for the wealthy to “earn” their wealth.
They accomplish their wealth by exploiting the restricted job market, the lobbyists who promote and achieve protection for low wages and few benefits, and encourage thru tax breaks behavior that destroys our national economy like outsourcing to foreign countries and the decade phenomena toward “temporary” employees who have no protections, lowest wages, and no benefits.
Then the wealthy exploit the middle class and lower class again by charging prime costs for products - which isn’t bad if it is a luxury, but when it is basic services such as gas, oil, food, phones, electricity, water,—then, property ownership (which bridges the gap from lower income families to middle class) - then it’s price gauging.
Taking income (whether withheld in low pay and benefits) from the working class and giving it to the wealthiest among us IS redistribution when gov’’t policy has changed the framework that grew this nation.
Second to the gov’t policy is those of us who refuse to take a stand, and have lost their purchasing powers, by bending and blushing when these policies emerged and failed to heed the warnings like “Buy American” in order to save a few pennies at Walmart. And by continuing to vote in the representatives who did the same with the policies like the Bushie clan.
17 Aug 2008 at 04:05 pm | #
"what party is T Boone Pickens anyway?”
So, one right wing oil tycoon decides to invest in green technologies because he thinks that he can make a quick buck, and suddenly the anon wingnut wants to pretend that green technologies are near & dear to the right wingers. What utter bullshit.
And Pickens gave $3 million to the despicable swift boat lies about Kerry’s war record, by the way. Fuck him and the horse he rode in on.
The gap between the wealthy and the poor has grown under Bush, and the income inequality is now larger than anytime before the great depression. The top 1 percent of Americans - those with incomes that year of more than $348,000 - receiving their largest share of national income since 1928. The top 10 percent, roughly those earning more than $100,000, also reached a level of income share not seen since before the Depression.
While total reported income in the United States increased almost 9 percent in 2005, the most recent year for which such data is available, average incomes for those in the bottom 90 percent dipped slightly compared with the year before, dropping $172, or 0.6 percent. The gains went largely to the top 1 percent, whose incomes rose to an average of more than $1.1 million each, an increase of more than $139,000, or about 14 percent.
The new data also shows that the top 300,000 Americans collectively enjoyed almost as much income as the bottom 150 million Americans. Per person, the top group received 440 times as much as the average person in the bottom half earned, nearly doubling the gap from 1980.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/29/business/income.4.php
The wealthy pay 15% on capital gains tax. we in the Middle Class are taxed at nearly 30%. And now it’s revealed that most U.S. corporations are not paying any income tax.
Sound fair to you?
18 Aug 2008 at 01:51 pm | #
None of which reagan did in regards to the EIC. He signed into law a bill that further an already existing program slightly. The maximum EITC tax credit went from $500 to $550 per year in 1984 and then raised the maximum again to 851 in 1986. He did not “forge” or “break new ground” or “lead the way” with regards to the EITC.
The bait and switch was trying to use a conservative leader as an example to refute what Finney said. Your goal was to convey that even ronald reagan wanted more tax cut to the poor and then you used “pioneer” to act like he was a big force in “breaking new ground” with his support of the EITC. In reality the increase was barely over the rate of inflation from where it was in 1977. SO much for “pioneering”
Nice rant with no specifics there chief. Or should I call you “kid” but by most measures the air is cleaner today then it was 8 years ago. Enjoy your books
The top 5% pay well over 50% of the tax dollars. And I would cut everyones taxes even more by eliminating programs that liberals hold so closely to. But nice try on trying to read my mind.
You showed me that you still don’t know the meaning of the word pioneer. You showed me that you dont understand who really pays taxes. You demonstrated that you dont know my opinion on tax policy and you seem to be losing your cool. Also your grip on scientific facts are colored by your reading of 3 books that seem to say what you want them to. SO yeah you set me “right”
thanks Kid
18 Aug 2008 at 01:58 pm | #
THe profits were earned by the people that took the chances to start a business. The poor and middle class choose to work for them. They are not entitled to any more of the profits then what they agreed to work for. Understand?
No the point is that for all the bellyaching we have heard from democrats about the environment for years when something is about to get done it turns out to be a conservative who does it. If you want talk go find greg harris and his liberal friends- if you want action find a conservative who is willing to put his money up and take a risk Understand?
The middle class are taxed on their capital gains at 15% as well. Just like the higher class. Understand?
Corporations never pay taxes really. The taxes they do pay are paid by you when you buy the product as the taxes are just added into the cost of doing business. SO if you want to pay $5 a gallon for gas just put a tax of a dollar per gallon onto the oil companies. Understand?
Who ever told you life was fair was lying to you.
18 Aug 2008 at 04:59 pm | #
"THe profits were earned by the people that took the chances to start a business.”
The profits were largely earned by the people who inherited their money from Daddy. Like Cindy McClain, or all of the Lesser Linders, or Richard Mellon Scaife, or Fat Jimmy Schifrin, who never worked a day in their lives.
“ The middle class are taxed on their capital gains at 15% as well. Just like the higher class. Understand?”
The Middle Class largely do not buy stocks and bonds (except via their 401K plans, which are tax exempt) and do not pay Capital Gains Taxes. They are almost entirely a concern of the wealthy. Only a small percentage of taxpayers pay any capital gains, Just under 13 percent of all who filed tax returns for 2006 reported any capital gains income. 80% of those who paid capital gains tax made above $200,000 per year, based on 2006 IRS data. Understand?
18 Aug 2008 at 05:43 pm | #
Reagan increased the EITC by 75%, and he institutionalized what had been an experimental program. Sorry to see you are so reluctant to give credit to a guy I presume is your hero. But persist in your silliness about what “pioneered’ connotes. Whatever.
And my primary point about the EITC is that it was created as an incentive for Americans who do not pay income taxes. You have a hard time grasping that point. But I think you may have a hard time grasping anything that isn’t a rightwing soundbite.
You want to eliminate “liberal” entitlements? I presume by this you mean social security, medicare, veteran’s benefits, student loans, etc. Well, if that’s the case, you confirmed my point tht you care little about the vast majority of Americans. You seem like one of those types that was born on third base but thinks he hit a triple.
Also, I know this may be jolting to your world view, but most jobs are created by MIDDLE CLASS small business owners.
BTW, if you really beleive nothing was done about the environment before Pickens, then you really, really need to get your head out of your ass. Perhaps save yourself the time from posting on this blog and instead read a book? I recommend you start with this one:
http://books.google.com/books?id=xf8_49OFxqEC&printsec=frontcover&sig=ACfU3U2rU3DOfQXfc0Vbeyym7ebwBk759g&source=gbs_similarbooks_r&cad=5_2
I’m not losing my cool. To the contrary, I’ve laughed at each of your responses. I could actually write your responses for you because they’re so predicatable. I was quite simply pointing out that you have no right to be cocky when you are too much of coward to put your name behind your opinions. This doesn’t make me mad; it makes me sad.
18 Aug 2008 at 07:21 pm | #
Word84 . . . please find a new source for your info other than Rush Limbaugh.
http://www.askquestions.org/articles/taxes/#02
18 Aug 2008 at 07:43 pm | #
Only 2.6% of middle class taxpayers paid any capital gains taxes. That’s not a surprise, and it debunks a major conservative talking point. Cappel is right, capital gains really only effect the rich. And if you heard him the other night, John McCain thinks that the threshold between being middle class and rich is a $5 Million income. Simply astonishing.
19 Aug 2008 at 08:45 am | #
I cannot believe that Mr. Harris has not been elected to office by now..... (sarcasm)
How ‘bout a little Econ lesson..... straight from the bar....and straight from what Harris and the likes preach…
Bar Stool Economics
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that’s what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until on day, the owner threw them a curve. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20."Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’ They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33&#xsa;vings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28&#xsa;vings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
“I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,” but he got $10!”
“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!”
“That’s true!!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!”
“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
University of Georgia
For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.
19 Aug 2008 at 10:04 am | #
It comes as a surprise to almost everybody, but Hoover Dam was actually a work project of the Hoover Administration, not FDR’s. It was started in 1931. Roosevelt was elected in 1932 and took office in 1933.
I am sympathetic towards many of the proposed programs discussed, especially health care. It would help if there were more fiscal discipline evident in existing programs. How many recent programs, especially local ones, can we point to as good examples of fiscal stewardship?
Even something as innocuous as a city park becomes a weapon in the hands of City Council. To block a shipping container transfer operation, which would have “spoiled” the view from a condo project up on a hill, council suddenly discovered a desperate need for a new park close by the sewage treatment plant. Oops! That was the area needed for their operation. Too bad.
And now the city is being sued for taking away their business without compensation. Potentially Cincinnati may have to pay out tens of millions of tax dollars to the company. In addition, we lose millions of tax dollars in revenue that we would have received had we merely allowed them to go ahead with their project. A project, by the way, which would NOT have required millions in subsidies that our council often passes out to its friends.
19 Aug 2008 at 10:09 am | #
Nope, that’s now how it works. If your little analogy were based in real world taxation, then the beers would cost the non-rich beer drinkers about 30% more than it would cost the wealthy guy.
I guess if you owned a bar you’d run special “30% off all purchases for millionaires.”
19 Aug 2008 at 01:11 pm | #
Hi “Stan,” what’s your last name?
BTW “Stan,” did you know the above “bar stool economics piece” is part of an internet hoax, and that the economist it cites as its author denies even having written it?
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/t/taxcuts.htm
Boy, you guys are so ridiculous that you don’t even realize that you confirm the worst caricature of a right wing ditto head each time you share your views. As stated earlier, I know what your responses will be before you ever submit them; this is because I know the 2-3 sources of information where you get all your “news.” And to think you took a jab at me earlier for actually reading books!
You really need to get out of your bubble. As for me, I’m signing off, as I genuinely now feel it is an exercise in futility arguing with indoctrinated fools who possess no ability to think critically. Next you’ll be sending me stuff “proving” Obama is Muslim, not an American citizen, etc. Very sad.
19 Aug 2008 at 04:05 pm | #
I’m a day late and a dollar short. I was going to say the same thing. A staple for this guy’s favorites should be snopes.com. A click of a mouse can let him know that most of the ridiculous propaganda that he and those like him circulate and actually believe, is unsubstantiated bullshit. The above homily has been circulating since 2004. As you said, the “professor” quoted above, denies any affiliation, as does the second “professor” it was attributed to. He has probably also forwarded a similar “what’s wrong with America” rant attributed to Andy Rooney, that Rooney didn’t write.
19 Aug 2008 at 04:50 pm | #
BAM! Way to nail “Stan” Greg!! Right wingers are so utterly predictable, aren’t they?
20 Aug 2008 at 02:50 am | #
Greg Harris endorsed Issue 27, right?
20 Aug 2008 at 05:24 pm | #
Boy....ya’ll really got me on this one.
Let me ‘splain this S L O W L Y .......
Greg,
Who gives a crap who wrote it? The moral of the story is the entire point.
Class warfare......
Gimme, gimme, gimme.
Both from the lazy bastards who didn’t take advantage of his/her educational opportunities, and the “let’s tax the rich some more” politicians (you) who turn around and spend it on shit that has nothing to do with helping the “poor”.
BTW --- Libriterian is my party of choice.
20 Aug 2008 at 10:44 pm | #
"Stan” is one of those moronic right wingers who likes to pretend that he’s rich, and has the delusion that one day he’s actually going to strike it rich. What a hoot. Keep trying, “Stan”. Meanwhile you can keep paying the 30% taxes that the rest of us middle class grunts are paying, while the Linder Trust Funders pay 17% on their billions.
21 Aug 2008 at 09:09 am | #
I am rich. And you like most of the other lefites are jealous as hell about it.
I worked my ass off to get to where I am today at a relatively young age. I paid my own way through school, drove a fucking Vega while doing so. Worked two jobs year round while doing so.
Now, I am able to sit back and enjoy the fruits of my hard work. My family will not have to go through what I went through to get to where I am today. I have invested wisely to make sure of that.
I do not apologize for my success. I do not weep for those sho fucked up and threw away the same opportunity that I was afforded.
Keep bitching about it. It’s the same gripe that’s been around for 40 years.
This bitching has gotten your type nowwhere. You debate me, berate me, and generalize me and my success....
Yet when it all is said and done, you are right where you started (nowhere) and I have advanced two more steps forward.
Education is a beautiful thing.
Capitalism is a beautiful thing.
Envy is not.
21 Aug 2008 at 09:12 am | #
And by the way Capell....
Your rant about the the tax rates made my point, you are just too stupid to realize it.
Class dismissed.....
Time for a Corona
21 Aug 2008 at 09:39 am | #
Well, I give a crap who wrote it because the piece is a fraud based in fraudulent stats and logic. It’s not just that the authors deny writing it, “Stan.” They deny the accuracy of its content. The rich don’t pay 59% of their earnings in taxes. And a link to graphs was provided in an earlier response that charts the percentage of income the rich pay in taxes versus the rest of us. Others have cited powerful anecdotes, such as Warren Buffet lamenting that he pays less in taxes than his secretary.
I’m sorry you find it so radical that I do not think millionaires were paying too much in taxes under Clinton. Seems to me that they were doing pretty well in the 90’s. As a “liberterian,” you may want to read the liberterian Cato Institute’s piece estimating we now give away $100 billion in corporate welfare.
So go ahead and be an apologist for tax policies that amount to class warfare against most Americans, high deficits, etc. And go ahead and defend an internet hoax as the basis of your argument. The more you talk, the more you are exposed as an uninformed fool. I now understand why you hide your identity.
Finally, I find your scorn for the poor to be despicable. We have over 1.2 million working poor in Ohio alone, many working 2-3 jobs. Who the hell are you to label all poor people “lazy”?!
21 Aug 2008 at 04:38 pm | #
Give is a break “Stan”. We all know that you are in your parents basement, typing with your Cheeto-stained fingers. Keep dreaming, “Stan”.
And the rich better get ready, because their taxes are going up. The party’s over, “Stan”, and it’s time to pay the bill. The Trillion dollar war you supported, the world record record deficit and the gutting of our nation’s infrastructure have to be paid for. I hope that the rich enjoyed the party, bacause they are going to have to pay their pair share. Say goodbye to the 17% tax rate that you’ve enjoyed, and say goodbye to 15% on your capital gains tax. Your rich friends (if you have any friends) are going to get to pay the kind of percentage that us in the Middle Class have to pay.
It’s time to face the music and dance.
21 Aug 2008 at 11:05 pm | #
Fuck You Capell....
I will be in the Carribean in 48 hours.
You will be boning up (probably in a literal sense) to the works of Stalin, dreaming how it “really will work”.
Us rich guys will just take the rest of our $$ elsewhere and you and your hands out buddies will really be screwed.
“Tax the shit out of them” ............ there is a great track record for that thought process.
Bye...... I’ll bring you back some sand.
22 Aug 2008 at 09:45 am | #
Poor rich guys may now have to pay the same tax rates as the middle class. Sooo tragic.
22 Aug 2008 at 10:16 am | #
Stan, this “CincyCapell” is really Greg Matusak, a local buttboy to Hamilton County Democratic Party Chairman Tim Burke.
22 Aug 2008 at 11:23 am | #
"Stan” was banned from the Enquirer’s Politics blogs, so he’s looking for a new website to troll. He revealed himself when he started screaming Commie and pretending to be a rich guy. Here’s a clue for you “Stan”; rich, successful people do not troll the internet day and night.
“Stan” thinks that Social Security is a Stalinist plot. What a pathetic, desperate loser. Try quoting some original material next time “Stan”.
The only thing that “Stan” will be doing 48 hours from now is the same thing he was doing 48 hours ago; trolling right wing websites with his Cheeto-stained fingers, and trying to meet women on the Internet by pretending to be a gazillionaire. “Stan” is one rico-suave right wing troll. Meanwhile his Mommy is screaming at him to get out of the basement and look for a job.
Get a life “Stan”.
22 Aug 2008 at 11:46 am | #
Stan, this “Buster” is really Jeff Capell, a local buttboy to Coast wingnut Chris Finney. And the fact that he thinks that I’m Greg Matusak is hilarious. Jeffy is always wrong about everything.
22 Aug 2008 at 04:33 pm | #
It’s a shame that what started as an interesting debate on the issues has degenerated into such childish insults. No wonder you guys hide behind anonymity. Please grow up or find another blog to write your ignorant BS on.
22 Aug 2008 at 06:19 pm | #
Old Stan is going to the Caribbean in the middle of a hurricane? Why do I think that he’s lying??
29 Aug 2008 at 10:14 am | #
What a hoot !!
Capell worries about who I am, yet gets upset when someone name Buster claims that he’s is A guy named Matuzak. I could give a shit who’s who on here.
St. Lucia was great. For those who were concerned about my safety, (Mr. Meeker) might I suggest you watch some other news program other than MSNBC. You can spin politics all you want, as do all the channels, but you cannot create storms that do not exist. Therer was no hurrican that hit the Carribean last week. Maybe in a few hours, but not last week.
Capell… you are correct that rich people do not troll internet blogs day and night. We are working our asses off, making money and ultimately paying taxes to fund the social programs that you live off. Instead of mocking my success, you should be asking me to work harder. BTW, you have me confused with someone else that got banned from the Enquirer blog. I tried to post over there early on, but the new system they have is so fucked up that I threw in the towell. Too many pop-ups too many side programs running to make the page efficient.
Just thought I drop in for a sec.... Time for a new bag of Cheetos........
Wish I had a cold Piton to wash them down.
Regards....
Stan
P.S. — Hit a nerve with the Stalin reference...eh ?