I have a theory that politics, when it really boils down to it, is basically just two groups of people who argue over who should get to consume the production of society. Marx and Obama supporters call it the have's and the have not's. Some would call it the leftists vs. fascists. Others would call it the producers and the parasites. Regardless of what you want to call them, politics as far as I've read and seen throughout history is about one group of people finding a way to take what others have.
But what I find particularly interesting in today's Western democracies is that the "have nots/leftists/parasites" act as if the "haves/nazibushloverfascists/producers" don't already transfer a significant sum of their earnings to the have not group. That they don't get a dime from the richer classes. Or that the rich don't pay taxes at all, they have those always-available "loop-holes," and not only that, but they actively engage in oppressing the poorer classes just for sh!t's and giggles (which I know I do, actually the Republican party has a quota of poor people you must oppress if you want to join the party, you get bonus points if they are of a minority race or religion)
Regardless, what ultimately made me choose sides in this simplified political landscape was one simple thing;
Fact.
Specifically, statistics that show you, among other things, just how much people are taxed and where the government spends the money.
One would think this would be the MINIMUM amount of fiscal stewardship a citizen of a democracy (or republic) would do to determine what is in the best fiscal interests of the country they are ultimately responsible for. Sadly, one cannot attribute that bare minimum of concern for one's country to the majority of Obama supporters because without verifying the facts, they'll just go and knee-jerk response;
"The rich don't pay their fair share."
"The rich use loopholes to avoid paying taxes."
"The rich poke baby koala bears with sharp sticks." (which you also get bonus points for)
When the reality, the cold hard truth of the matter is the rich in the US and practically all western democracies are the most charitable people in the history of the world;
Of course there is more to a political campaign and platform than just fiscal policy. But my question would be would anybody of the lefter leaning ideologies vote for Obama if he said he wasn't going to tax the rich? And on the same coin, would anybody of the righter leaning ideologies vote for McCain if he said he was going to tax the rich?
If you think about it, you'll see just how simple politics is.
14 comments:
Hmm. Mostly, I think you have hit the nail on the head. Trouble is, this time around the Republican has said he will tax the rich - just not as much. (And he is proposing taking away our bonus points for burning crude oil at the north pole to light our ritual use of baby seals to smack polar bears off the ice!)
I'd be willing to bet that the income share of the richest 30% in the US and Canada hovers somewhere around 65% and 60%, respectively.
If so, then they're pulling about their own weight, and not much more. Given that the poorest souls in those two countries are literally starving, I would think that it's not unreasonable to expect the richest to pay substantially more than their "fair share" of taxes.
Cap, I can't believe that with your love of graphs and tables you would have failed to mention what may be the more damning statistic. Namely,Contribution by the Poorest 30%.... http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/tax_con_by_poo_30-taxation-contribution-by-poorest-30 Funny how those who love to point to the scandanavian countries as models to emulate fail to point out that they idolize a system built on the backs of the poor while we give them a free ride. :)
"Regardless of what you want to call them, politics as far as I've read and seen throughout history is about one group of people finding a way to take what others have."
Bingo.
Captain,
It's "progressive", don't you see? It's "wealth transfer" to the underprivileged and/or disenfranchised. When the minority pays for the majority, it'll never change.....democracy at its finest...
JCL
Do you have a link to the source of those stats? If I try to share it with "others" they will ask: what's the source?
Alan
I agree that we should look at the fiscal interests of the country. That doesn't appear to be what people on the right are doing when they focus on their own self-interests with pledges such as "no new taxes." The pledge is meaningless if they can't rationally explain what they plan to cut and why that's good for America.
Basically, we need to hear better arguments from both sides on economic issues rather than getting hung up on wedge social issues that have no bearing on the country's productivity.
As always, great chart and analysis.
Unlike pre-WWII Germany, the US is not in a struggle between Nazis and communists - two extremes. It's between one relatively conservative party and one radical party constrained by popular opinion and checks and balances. Democrats are wolves in sheep's clothing - given the chance, they'd nationalize or rigidly control banks and large firms. No Republican I know would herd minorities into concentration camps or eliminate welfare. There is no political symmetry in the US.
The example of this is how frequently liberals refer to America as "imperialist", harkening back to Soviet rhetoric. Their slogans and imagery are indistinquishable from communist propaganda.
Calling Pelosi a socialist is accurate. Calling Bush a Nazi is a mental illness.
No nation has ever taxed its way into prosperity. How can anyone believe that the economic system and government which made us the richest, most powerful nation on the planet has outgrown its usefulness?
In the religion of American socialism, Goverment is God, taxes are tithes, abortion is a sacrament, veganism is a dietary restriction, Earth Day is a high holy day, San Francisco is Mecca, FDR a saint, JFK a martyr, Karl Marx a prophet, MLK Jr is Moses, and Obama is the Messiah.
I believe in THAT "separation of church and state."
We have the brilliant insight above: "I'd be willing to bet that the income share of the richest 30% in the US and Canada hovers somewhere around 65% and 60%, respectively."
Presumably, the “moral insight” is that everyone bears an equal burden, but that the rich are capable of it, while the poor are not.
Sigh. Innuendo – typical.
There’s only one problem with this. Incomes are earned, not shared.
Therein lies the fallacy.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting what to have for supper.
This is an old argument. The things I hate most about it:
1) Wealth is NOT and *never* is distributed fairly. CEOs don't work as hard or *even* produce *nearly* as much value as the guy who makes my sandwiches for lunch.
The reason he's so well off and the other guy is so poor usually boils down to access to capital. Sometimes that's via connections, and sometimes it's access to better information (e.g. education) but it nearly always boils down to that same thing: "access to capital".
The tax system accurately reflects that wealth is thus unfairly distributed and the rich are consequently taxed more. This is a very rough and ready means of making the system equitable of course, since clearly some rich people clearly *are* producing value for which they are justly compensated (e.g. some entrepreneurs). that's what causes all the arguments.
2) when you consider WHAT and WHY the wealthy in the US give to your statistics start to look a lot less generous. The answer is all too often "so my almer mater/my church can build an extension on its already rich grounds" and "so i can move down a tax bracket" (other countries don't have this perverse tax incentive to donate to charity where you wind up richer in many cases).
"I'd be willing to bet that the income share of the richest 30% in the US and Canada hovers somewhere around 65% and 60%, respectively." (anonymous)
<
<
Problem IS, the top 30% of INCOME EARNERS are NOT the same as "the richest 30% of Americans."
In fact, there is almost no overlap among the top 10% of American INCOME EARNERS and the richest 10% of Americans.
The truly wealthy DON'T rely on income for wealth and that's why investments, stock dividends and Capital Gains are taxed at lower fixed rates (and they SHOULD BE)...BUT even those lower tax rates are NOT what shields the investment, dividend and other income of the truly wealthy - Trusts and Foundations keep the taxman at bay.
Which is why the likes of Teresa Heinz-Kerry and Tom Keane Jr. (BOTH among the richest 1% of Americans - people who don't rely on income for any sizable portion of their real wealth) can accurately claim (as both did back in 2004) that they only paid 5% on their earned income the previous year.
The INCOME TAX is an anti-productivity tax and as such is one of the most regressive taxes available.
A consumption tax like the Fair Tax (http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer) or some other vehicle, like the Land Value Tax (http://lvtproject.org/) would be infinitely LESS regressive, because they would cease PUNISHING productivity.
Wait, so the bum who dropped out of high school and became a baby-daddy multiple times gets paid jack squat. The guy who goes to college, avoids baby-mama-drama, and majors in something worthwhile gets paid well.
And this is unfair...how?
""I'd be willing to bet that the income share of the richest 30% in the US and Canada hovers somewhere around 65% and 60%, respectively." (anonymous)
<
<
Funny story, that data IS available and the top 10% of income earners PAY 64.89%, while earning just 49.66% of the income.
Post a Comment