All that being said, I wouldn't leave you aspiring economists without a little stats for Tax Day.
First, all of you who are so blinded by your hate for GW and envy for other people's wealth that all you can do is regurgitate the same old, "tax cuts benefit only the rich."
Well have a cup of shut the f#ck up and have this fact beaten into your head;
Under GW taxes have gone down for everybody.
Secondly, I'm getting mighty sick and tired of your greedy scum bucket parasites known as "the poor" who think you have it so rough when in reality, you don't pay a freaking dime for any government service if you're in the bottom 60% of income earners. Free roads, free schools, free health care, free defense. Let alone you have the audacity to demand that the rich pay more in taxes.
But then again, of course we all know those on the left aren't concerned as much with facts as they are concerned with coming up with rationalizations (read-lies and falsehoods) to redistribute wealth.I just wish the left would admit to it.
24 comments:
Absolutely love your stats on tax-incidence here in the US. What really chaps my ass is Social Security/OASDI. It's a ponzi-scheme of epic proportions.
But at least it's Honest Theft -- they do give you an annual statement letting you know by how much you've been ripped off each year. By my very conservative estimate, SS/OASDI has cost me about $600K out of my retirement. And I'm only 26.
"Free roads, free schools, free health care...."
But I do pay tolls, sales tax, FICA taxes...
It's my understanding that income tax is taken from people much more equitably on the state level.
Because I'm a Texan, however, I don't pay state income tax.
While the income tax is not the only way that we redistribute wealth in this country, it is the one that gets the most press. Now if only people would realize that business do not pay taxes...
All taxes are income taxes, regardless of source or what the tax is levied upon since it is ultimately income that pays the tax.
That's why I constantly harp on government revenues as a percent of GDP because it includes all forms of taxation and all forms of income.
CC, you can be sort of a nutcase. Look, I'm generally left of center. In most of the country in fact I'd be WAY left of center but unfortunately I live among the ovine liberals of Berkeely, California and am, in context, apparently a fascist.
Sure. I think a legitimate function of government is income redistribution.
Let's not take that too far, I'm not so terrified of "inequality" or anything like that, but, hey, I think prgressive taxes are a good thing. I've never denied it.
And you know what, CC? You can't argue that I'm _wrong_. Societies decide what they value, and act on it. Our society mostly wants to try where it can to help the poor and miserable. Even in those cases where some poor bastard is poor and miserable through his or her own laziness and/or stupidity. Are there costs to be paid for those values? Sure. We pay 'em. There's a legitimate social end there.
Sanjay - can I be the first person to point out a glaring problem with your reasoning?
"Societies" don't act. Societies don't make choices. Only individuals make choices.
What you suggest is nothing short of an appeal to popularity logical fallacy.
Sanjay,
Yes, but this is why you'll inevitably become a crazed capitalist like me.
Because if you look at countries that do the wealth redistributing, you'll see that they all gradually descend into socialism, in which case, there is no wealth to redistribute.
Plus, think of it this way. If you and your "society" are going to redistribute myself, why the hell would hard working industrious, wealth producing person live there? Why would any of them stay? Why would anybody throw money there?
You see, Sanjay, you and I don't disagree. You and I both want what's best for the world. It's just that you don't understand how the world works like I do. And that is why (cold as my approach may seem to you) it is supremely superior to your ideal in that mine will actually bring about wealth and lower poverty.
Doinkcarus is simply. obviously, wrong. "Societies' do act. We all vote, and then the government acts on our collective behalf, and the individuals who disagreed go along. You can make a semantic distinction but the upshot is that we do in fact act collectively.
CC, your strawman doesn't work. America has always done some wealth redistribution and we aren't --- as I think Micklethwait and Woolridge among others argue --- descending into socialism. South Africa and Australia aren't either.
In fact, you basically need to dso some income redistribution for multiple reasons. _Reason_ had a great article sometime back about the libertarian case for health care reform. The argument was, look, when your neighbor is dying in the street, you aren't going to let him die, period. So you're going to dig into your wallet and send him to an ER: like it or not, those are our social, cultural values. It's going to cost you anyway. And you need the government to spread that cost out for you, to preserve and protect those values and not reward people who deviate from them. One might make a similar argument about, say, residents of a city destroyed by a natural catastrophe. Societies don't _have_ to run that way or have those values (I think) --- but Americans do and they make a government to uphold those values.
CC's "think of it this way" is also obviously wrong. Sure; you want people's cost of government to be progressive but not ridiculously so, to the point where people no longer have any marginal gain from their income. Why would people work in an income-redistributing society? Because, you work more and you make more, good money. Period. Like I said, "inequality" doesn't scare me; i'm not about making everyone's income the same whether they're doing anything useful or not! If you make 90% more money by working 100% more, you'll probably go ahead and do it, no?
As with the generalization about descent into socialism -- sure, you can make it sound ridiculous by pushing it to an extreme, but, that's a pretty weak argument, and suggests that you're aware of the weakness of your position.
I've always wondered why folks like sanjay are so keen on redistributing other peoples wealth against their wishes.
How much wealth have you got, sanjay? How much is the most I should have in your view? Is the need for redistribution really so pressing that you and people like you cannot manage to get it done voluntarily, among like-minded people?
I mean, I want to see less redistribution, but you won't see me forcing others to keep their wealth if they don't believe in doing so. You, sanjay, are a thug. The reason for it might be oh so sweet and pretty from your point of view, but you are a thug and an authoritarian, and I have no respect for that behavior.
I hope CC is right about your future.
What strawman?
Anyway, I certainly hope I'm not right about Sanjay's future, unfortunately, given the history of socialist countries, I guarantee you I will be right.
Sanjay - asserting that a government acts on "our collective interests" is quite different than the idea that a society is a living, breathing willing thing. When you regard "society's actions" or "society's will" or "society's" anything, you are always commiting the error of holding the minority subordinate to the commanding majority (or in some instances, vice versa). THe only way this can be avoided is a unanimous vote. As far as I know, that doesn't happen.
So you ultimately have a few people controlling the rest.
Also, I'm going to question the validity of your belief that "the government acts in our best interest."
Whose best interest? Yours? Mine? My fathers? All of ours together? Explain pork. Bridges to nowhere, pointless wars. Failed drug wars. Regressive sin taxes. Regressive business taxes. Harmful quotas. The list is nearly endless, my friend. And all of these examples are cases where an interest group has hijacked the power of the government to force others into acquiescence.
Doinicarus, your position is so weak that you have to put words in my mouth, with fake quotes. I don't think "the government acts in our best interest" -- _that's_ authoritarian. It acts in what the majority decides is our interest, whether or not that's best. There are checks and roadblocks to try to prevent the majority steamrolling minorities. But in the end a sustained majority wins --- and should, at least under our democratic system.
We call that --- or I called it "society's will," or what have you. Again there's semantics. But there's an understanding that the government is empowered to take collective action, and we all go along with it to some extent. That's why executioners aren't held guilty of murder (although it would be quite interesting if they were since it raises the intriguing question of, who then executes _them_? But never mind.) So, the half of your point "questioning your belief that 'the government acts in our best interest'" is, uh, interesting. The government does no such thing, nor should it. Instead it does what most of us what it to do on any one issue at any one time, subject to a few delays and checks. Once again: you can't argue with my post so, you argue with something I didn't say.
CC, you still have this problem. Your statement, "if you look at countries that do the wealth redistributing, you'll see that they all gradually descend into socialism" is provably WRONG. America has _always_ done some wealth resdistribution as have other capitalist countries (even, say, Singapore). The error is in the _magnitude_. I _don't_ argue that wealth redistrution should be total or "levelling." It's a question of magnitude; push it to an extreme and you become right, but that's not an extreme I inhabit.
And this is where wulf becomes a nut. I'm not a communist, wulf: make as much as you want. I think I started all this saying I don't particularly worry about "inequality" --- perhaps you can't read. I guarantee I will never support a taxation scheme that denies you any marginal profit on your income: if you work better, you'll make more money. But if you're arguing that the government shouldn't take some of that money and spend it on poorer people --- hell, if _any_ of you want to make that argument --- well, good luck selling that, boys! I think you'll find a VAST majority of Americans -- even self-identified conservatives and Republicans -- think it's appropriate for government to spend money (at the very least in the form of tax ductions for charity) to help the less fortunate. Dreaming of a world where that's not true is a fun way to put yourself in a box with Grover Norquist, but, seeking to impose that style of government on a populace which overwhelmingly doesn't want it --- uh, why am _I_ the thug authoritarian, exactly, wulf? Look, you're in the society, you no doubt enjoy its benefits: so don't be all, "don't tread on me" when they come around asking you to play by their rules. You have as much chance as I to change those rules through the system although, like I said, good luck trying to end wealth transfers from rich to poor.
If you want to argue semantics, sanjay that's fine. I did not intend to put words in your mouth with the quotes, but rather to highlight what seem to be your beliefs and positions on the matter at hand.
A society is no more than the group of individuals who comprise it. Pretending that society can act independent of these actors is specious reasoning at best.
Asserting that "[government] acts in what the majority decides is our interest, whether or not that's best" is exactly the point that I'm talking about. the key word in that quote, which I will attribute to you, is "majority." Which validates my understanding of your position, that less-than-mainstream opinions, beliefs and desires are subordinate to those opinions, beliefs, and desires of the "majority."
The legitimate end of government is not to further the interests of any group or groups. It is to protect the natural liberties of individuals - in freedom of action, of thought, of property, and to punish those who violate the sanctity of the rights of others.
Unfortunately, government nearly always acts in its own best interest, with no (or little) regard fot its proper charge.
Doinkcarus, your individual/society framework is not only wrong, it undercuts a lot of the greatness of the thinkers who first put it forward. You want to think, "societies" don't act, individuals do as actors. But when guys like Locke and Hobbes put forward the idea of an "indivdual" it was revolutionary because surtely you recognize that that concept is _as fictional_ as the concept of a "society." There's no such thing. Neither you nor I nor anyone else can tease out the natural or innate preferences and actions of a person from those implanted by his community or context, and trying to get at government by starting with thinking how hypothetical "individuals" behave in its State of Nature/War absence, was revolutionary for exactly that reason: it's a hell of a useful construct but still just a construct.
On the other hand, we agree that certain actions (like an execution) are done by "all of us." It's a "social" action because in the realm where we can talk about who does what, we all agree on that fiction. Cf. the Politics, where Aristotle tries for a while to figure out what politics is and how it works from first principles, gives up, and sys, OK, let's talk about what people _say_ politics is --- that's what it is. In the same sense, there is a common understanding of how we act in concert -- so we do. Go through your city and ask people if we act collectively ever, or do things "as a society." >95% will say, "yes." So we do. That's what agency _is_. The rest is semantics.
Your perception of the function of majorities and minorities is fundamentally anti-democratic. In a democracy, a _sustained_ majority on an issue, wins. Period. To argue otherwise is undemocratic: it's interesting, but that's not how our system works, sorry.
Does that mean minorities always get rolled? No. Marshall and Adams' cocept of government protecting minority interests in one I fundamentally agree with. But minority interests are protected, basically, two ways. (1) there's a sort of hysteresis: there's some delay and timing issues, and inertia in the system, so a majority needs to have a _sustained_ opinion on an issue. And (2) there's some horse-trading via electred representatives: so minorities who feel real real strongly on an issue, can get it their way but have to give in to the majority on most issues: there's a balancing of --- let's say "depth of passion" --- versus population.
But in the end, as you state, "less-than-mainstream opinions, beliefs and desires are subordinate to those opinions, beliefs, and desires of the 'majority.'" Damn straight. They crtainly "count" less, and our elections are based on that principle! If it is otherwise, in the long run, it can _only_ be so because the majority makes a tradeoff over a broad portfolio of issues. When a single issue is somehow divorced from eveything else, so there is no way to balance interest ("support me on this and I'll support you on that") -- the majority wins, period. That's democracy. Again: you can argue whether it's the system you want, but you can't argue it's "wrong," it's the system we have.
And more importantly, doinkicarus, I think you'll still agree CC is nutters in his original post. _Most_ Americans -- not just "liberals" -- support wealth transfers, overwhelmingly. It's just a question of the degree of wealth transfer. It may well be too much right now.
CC, the prediction to which I referred was when you said you'll inevitably become a crazed capitalist like me.
Sanjay, you advocate redistribution, and then try to hide behind calling it the will of the people. It's one thing to recognize that it happens, but you said that you advocate it. That makes you a thug, whether you are a communist (which I never called you, so don't get snarky about my ability to read) or not.
You complain that Doinkicarus is putting words in your mouth, and yet you have done it to me. There is a word for that. What is it?
Whatever. I have read enough to identify your thuggary, and I'm guessing that's all I am going to get out of conversation with you.
I am certainly anti-democratic iwhen it comes to subordinating the will and rights of a certain class because they hold less-than-popular opinions. That IS how a democracy works. And that is precisely what I dislike about it. It inevitably descends into a power/class struggle, a popularity contest between interest groups and demagogues.
"you can argue whether it's the system you want, but you can't argue it's 'wrong,' it's the system we have" --- your words from your pen.
Am I to read this as: It exists, erego it is just?
Or rather: It exists, erego it is above judgement?
Or rather: It is exists because it is just?
Or some other interpretation?
What it seems you're saying is: I can't debate the justice of something because it exists and is beyond reproach. That seems to be what you're saying. I'm not allowed to debate the merits of our system, because it is the system that exists. Whatever line (or circle) of reasoning is behind that belief --- please enlighten me, because my infantile mind is unable to make the quantum leap necessary to reach your understanding of "opinion," and "argue."
Cripes, I hate to do this, but I must ACTUALLY COME TO THE DEFNSE OF SANJAY! (freaking sucks)
What's the world coming to? Coming to the defense of a gay guy in SF.
I wouldn't say Sanjay is a thug, he is the quentessential brainwashed young liberal living out on the west coast. He will inevitably come to see the weaknesses of his ideology. And me being the economist, I realize that it is pointless to try to convince him, which is why I don't totally engage him in argument. Regardless he will (fraking guarantee you) be like my father and after 50 years of life it will suddenly dawn on him.
Of course by that time he'll have to reconcile with himself for voting the wrong way the entire time, but that will come due in 2035.
All hyperbole set aside, I'll bet serious coin he'll inevitably become a capitalist.
In the meantime, the officially deputize junior deputy economist is handling it rather well.
Wulf, wulf. You remain illiterate. When did I imply there was a limit on what you could earn? In fact, I explicitly said the opposite. I also love your
"Is the need for redistribution really so pressing that you and people like you cannot manage to get it done voluntarily, among like-minded people?"
since, uh, actually it _does_ seem to be getting done, no? I mean, I'm not exactly some lone voice in the night crying for wealth transfers in a nonredistributive society, eh? Which one of us is kidding himself? If I'm a thug, then, so is 95% of everyone and the word means nothing.
In fact also, your beliefs on this may well be the same as mine: you say you want to see _less_ redistribution. Not none! And where I bit into CC was the weird assertion that "liberals" want to see redistribution of income. Ummmmmm, no. Just about everyone does. In fact, the _inverse_ of what he orginally said, is true: it's not that liberals don't stand up and say they're for wealth transfers (in fact, just about everyone does): but if there were some party explicitly _against_ all wealth transfers, man, I wish _they'd_ have the guts to stand up and say it because they would rapidly become a dwindling memory.
Sure I advocate redistribution of income. But again, there's a matter of degree. Look, even if taxation is flat, when the government builds infrastructure, that's a wealth transfer: people who make ten times more than I do, don't get ten times more benefit out of the roads. When the government maintains an army, same (and in fact, the modern all-volunteer force seems to involve, really, even more of a wealth transfer): and yet nobody but the most extreme and nutty of libertarians would argue that defense isn't a fundamental function of a government. What about it, CC? Really think all transfer of wealth is bad? Really, really? Or did I catch you saying something stupid?
Doinkicarus, sure. I appreciate what you're saying, really I do. But like I said, that's what we _have_. I'm not _sure_ it could work another way (certainly I don't think you can find an example: and experiment beats theory every time.) And, furthermore, it is _overwhelmingly_ what we _want_: a democracy -- you seem to agree with me that what that forces is, a consistent and intense majority, wins, period.
You seem to be worried that that system isn't "just." Well, jeez, man, what the hell is "just?" Communists think they knew! Look, "just" is a social construct too --- different people have different senses of it. Our government (not all of them) exists to serve a certain consensus of what that is. If you don't like it, fine: you appear to be clear (unlike wulf) that you have a problem with democracy, and I think that's a reasonable stance actually; I have a few myself. But where I came in was not that but, CC is a nutcase to wonder why nobody stands up and declares their support of it when in fact, damn near everybody does!
I guess I don't know _how_ you debate the "justice" of it, whatever that is or them are. You can say you wish it were otherwise, and think about how that might work. And I'd _never_ say the system is above criticism whether or not it is the will of the majority. But the will of the overwhelming majority it is, and _that_ is where I bit into CC -- in the claim that wealth transfers are what "liberals" want but dare not advocate. That claim -- do we agree on this? -- is prima facie ludicrous, both in that liberals _do_ lay claim to wanting wealth transfers, and in that damn near everybody else does too. Hell, Reagan promoted the EITC (as I suspect all of you are too young to recall)! Not one of you has yet even _tried_ to refute the bitch slap I tried to give him for that, because he's _wrong_.
Including, say, CC's father. I suspect he'd agree that _some_ level of wealth transfer -- building bridges? Protecting comon resources? Maybe tax deductions for nonprofits? Maintianing a military? -- is an appropriate function of government. In fact, I'd be willing to make a wager on it.
Ah, poor, poor CC. At least I can prove I'm heterosexual. And I even get some. "Brainwashed?" CC, I'm a 17-year _Economist_ subscriber. What about you? I get the FT and the WSJ. Take a picture of your shelves of economics and history books sometime and send it to me. I'll send mine. Or ask Mariam who she thinks will win that one -- by, like, an order of magnitude (and, no, all the economics isn't Veblen/Engels stuff.... ) Hell, I actually read your blog. Bring it on. But do you still think the left is somehow unwilling to admit it wants to redistribute wealth? Or, was that a dumb thing to write?
Oh -- while I'm at it, here's a special smackdown on Jonathan for this howler:
"If you study economics, you find that taxes in general are bad no matter who you tax. There are exceptions when taxing negative externalities."
Umm, no, you may wish to actually, y'know, study economics. Taxes may slow growth or lower production or things like that, no matter who you tax. But they are not "bad" no matter who you tax: government always costs some money, which somebody has gotta pay, and given that there are very very very few economists who are anarchists, that's a patently ridiculous statement.
what a fitting way to end the argument: "I'll show you mine if you show me yours!"
LOL.
Seriously. I don't think anyone is accusing you of being a moron, or of not being well-read. By all accounts you seem to be intelligent and you are probably well-read, too boot.
I would very much love to see your bookshelf, though.
I'll show some of mine (and I'll steal a digital camera later), right here. Actually, the little man is accusing me of being naive.
Now, I realize CC has a degree approved by America's university professors: who can beat that? Some years of his parents paying for his education, followed by a job, wow. Intimidating.
Now, here's me. I worked a couple jobs and then functioned as a consultant in defense/healthcare stuff. I was able to write business plans adequate to fool some folks -- both private and public agents -- into giving me money, and I hope I produced good stuff. I ended up having to make a couple payrolls for employees too and have helped out a couple startups. I was able to make decent money and travel to a lot of the world (in fact much of why I write off CC's "economic" knowledge is his odd fetishistic belief that China is somehow embracing captialism: it is a central-planning kleptocracy at the moment and I don't have a lot of doubts whether the people running it would choose personal power or capitalism if forced).
At some point I decided for personal satisfaction reasons to go get a Ph.D. and I now support a family on $20K in the San Francisco Bay Area. Actually that's hard because I have no savings or assets, not through poor planning but through accident: some years back my then-girlfriend (now wife) and I, while pedestrians, were struck in a crosswalk by a speeding van driven by an uninsured motorist; her medical bills were mid-six-figure. So things are tricky but I'm pretty confident when I need to I can make some money. Anyway: for now I am what CC refers to above as a "greedy scum bucket parasite." (sort of. Actually I do pay some state taxes because the CA code is screwy six ways to Sunday, and while there's ways I can milk the feds I'm a little loth to take advantage of programs designed for people who are generally fucked, since I've basically chosen to make less money and (think) I can easily choose to make more when the time comes. (Although after reading wulfie I'm kicking myself for not filling out my EITC: I can spend his money better than he can. If I'm still here next year I will.) But I do use the free roads, etc.)
You might think the name calling would get me pissed at CC, but I have a stunningly beautiful two and a half year old who patiently explains to me where dinosaurs hang out, so this kind of stuff actually makes me more delighted and amused than pissed and I have enjoyed CC's site with friends since stumbling here following a link from (I think) Tyler Cowen on his "Economist" dating experience some long time back [side note: those actually interested in some libertarian economics weblogs would do rather well to read Tyler Cowen and Megan McArdle for starters --- but if you think the ideas here on wealth transfers or immigration are mainstream _libertarian_ economics -- let alone mainstream economics --- well, you're not going to like 'em.] So I dig this stuff.
But I don't think y'all are getting much done beyond babbling amongst yourselves, and tirading against evil liberal schemes for wealth transfers (hey, didja read Charles Murray's new book? Funny, I would've though he was a libertarian-conservative. Thanks for setting me straight!) or crudely replicating junior college political sci lectures on "society," or bitching about Katrina refugees -- well, that ain't gonna win you many converts, and unless you're flat out stupid (a possibility for wulf there) you have to know it hurts your causes -- and those of us who might like to actually keep government power somewhat checked --- more than it helps them.
Cap, when you came to sanjay's defense, I thought maybe it would be worth it to start over with him. In fact, I wrote out,
"Sanjay, I said you were a thug. You suggested that I am illiterate and stupid. I would like to try to start over on a more positive tone. Maybe it’s worth the effort to spell this out. If not, I’ll cut bait. So let’s back it up and look at the actual issues in this conversation one at a time."
But Cap, as I went through all of his comments, I realized that I can't do it. Sanjay hasn't answered questions that are posed to him directly, and he has shoveled words into my mouth while taking doink to task for the exact same thing. I stand by my assessment. I hope you are right about his future.
Sanjay, despite this exchange, and even without society or the government strong-arming me, I do wish you well. I do respect the fact that you are willing to identify yourself as one who supports wealth redistribution - which is all Cap's article was asking for from the left.
See, now,here's an important point to make, because it addresses CC's worries about paying for edcation for othr people's children.
Wulf has asked me three questions:
"How much wealth have you got, sanjay? How much is the most I should have in your view? Is the need for redistribution really so pressing that you and people like you cannot manage to get it done voluntarily, among like-minded people?" He complains I have answered none of his questions.
Interestingly, I have answered ALL THREE! I told him I have no savings or assets,he can make as much as he wants, and I've already gotten what I want volutarily from like-minded people (the vast majority).
Why, is that relevant to paying for other people's children? Well, it's like this. For one thing, Wulf obviously can't read. For antoehr, note that he made two posts -- calling me a thug in both, saying he had no respect for me, and in the second saying he could learn nothing by talking to me --- and in the third he says, the second was a polite call for a posiitive dialogue! So, Wulf is obviously some poor retarded basket case, drooling over his bib (or, God help us, his Ayn Rand, which will only make him worse) while some kind volunteer reads -- nice and slowly -- to him.
Stop and think, now, CC. Back before public schooling and subsidies, poor Wulf would've been shut up in some horrid institution. Maybe if he were sorta functional he could assemble simple craft items which would be sold to the charitable, nothing more. In many countries that's all he could expect.
But in America we have a vast educated populace and pay subsideis so people can come read to Wulf and clean his feces and wipe his chin and he can even, with their help, get on the big bad internet! Amazing! The mentally challenged can live lives where they feel engaged, involved, _valued_, because of public subsidy. And I don't know about you, CC, but that brings a tear of joy to my eye. Bravo!
Post a Comment