« A brief conversation between Randi and her more intelligent friend | Main | There are no adults on the Left »
October 28, 2007
Blood-sucking Democrats - updated
Just in time for Halloween!
With a great many Democrats and Leftists confident of winning the White House and both chambers of Congress in 2008, they have become less reticent in revealing their projects and baseline motives. And there's nothing so dear to their black little hearts as making the case for a bloody round of class warfare, as evidenced by Rangel's Mother of all Tax Reform, aka "F*ck the Rich".
If Rangel's plan seems a might complicated, buried in an ever growing labyrinth of taxcode, we have Robert Reich to nakedly state what such illiberals believe.
What’s fair? I’d say a 50 percent marginal tax rate on the very rich (earning over $500,000 a year). Plus an annual wealth tax of one half of one percent on net worth of people holding more than $5 million in total assets. Can’t be done, you say? Well, the highest marginal tax rate under Republican Dwight Eisenhower was 91 percent. It dropped under JFK to the 70 percent range. You say the rich will leave the country rather than face a marginal tax of 50 percent? Let them, and take away their citizenship.
It's actually refreshing to see such unapologetic covetedness on display. It allows us to confront the actual motivation rather than be bogged down in debates over tax-policy minutia.
Certainly, this isn't about fairness in the tax code. Reich, Rangel, et al have no interest in "fairness". What this is about is property rights and who ultimately gets to control them. What we have here are not "liberals" but statists who cover their envy of others' success with sanctimonious socialism. Reich believes that people have no right to own more than 50% of their earnings and they must pay yearly rental to the government of their property.
"Reich only wants to do this to 'the rich'" you say? I don't buy it. For one he disengenuously cites Eisenhower and JFK tax rates and skips Ronald Reagan. Facts about the tax code and tax rates of those eras and increased federal revenues as they changed and rates fell would belie his jealous hissy-fit. And that's what this boils down to -- envy, jealousy ... the coveting of your neighbors success. It's the excuse offered by the people who shoplift "hey, they're rich, they won't miss it and I wanted it."
Reich has the "morals" of a petty thief.
But that explains most of the illiberal Left anyway.
UPDATE more Reichy-rich-phobia here where he just can't stand that the rich give money to colleges and art museums.
Posted by Darleen at October 28, 2007 09:50 AM
Comments
What do you think the marginal tax rate on incomes over $500,000 should be? What do you think the property tax on holdings over $5 million should be? If someone left the United States to avoid complying with a legitimately-enacted law, why shouldn't that person lose their citizenship?
Posted by: Josh at October 28, 2007 02:07 PM
Josh
The Federal Income tax rate should be a flat 15% on all income. No Federal Capital Gains Tax (that wealth has already been taxed)and no Federal Death Tax (that wealth has already been taxed). Property Taxes should be determined by the Local and State legislators.
As to evasion of legitimately passed tax legislation....i.e. Marc Rich (pardoned by Clinton)...they would forfeit citizenship.
Posted by: HughS at October 28, 2007 06:04 PM
Josh
A wrong at $50K/year is still a wrong at $500k a year.
What moral grounds can justify a 50% confiscation of income AND an annual rental fee of one's assets?
to each according to his needs, from each according to his ability is one of the most evil memes ever coined
Posted by: Darleen at October 28, 2007 07:48 PM
No Federal Capital Gains Tax (that wealth has already been taxed)and no Federal Death Tax (that wealth has already been taxed).
Who cares if the wealth has already been taxed? If you pay payroll taxes on your income, and then use that income to buy something which is subject to sales tax, then that "wealth has already been taxed." Do you advocate the abolition of sales taxes?
A 15% tax rate will not provide sufficient funds for future middle-east adventures.
What moral grounds can justify a 50% confiscation of income AND an annual rental fee of one's assets?
The same moral grounds that justify a 15% confiscation of income and property taxes. At what percentage do tax rates become "immoral"? Please provide an exact figure.
Posted by: Josh at October 29, 2007 06:00 AM
"At what percentage do tax rates become 'immoral'? Please provide an exact figure."
Since their payment is coerced by the power of the state, the exact figure is zero.
Posted by: CGHill at October 29, 2007 06:19 AM
"Who cares if the wealth has already been taxed? "...I do.
"Do you advocate the abolition of sales taxes?"....that is a matter for States to decide. I am opposed to a National Sales Tax.
"A 15% tax rate will not provide sufficient funds for future middle-east adventures."...a 15% flat tax implemmented with an elimination of the Death Tax and Capital Gains tax would generate susbstantial growth in the economy. Study the effects of lowering various Federal tax rates beginning in 1978 through present.
Posted by: HughS at October 29, 2007 07:13 AM
"a 15% flat tax implemmented with an elimination of the Death Tax and Capital Gains tax would generate susbstantial growth in the economy."
I was wondering when we'd see someone who still believes in the Laffer Curve.
As for the ridiculous and intentionally misleading term "Death Tax," the actual term is "Estate Tax," since death is not subject to taxation. Rather, the value of an estate is taxed, with the following exclusions:
Tax years 2006, 2007, 2008 - estates valued at up to $2,000,000 (that's 2 million dollars) are excluded.
Tax year 2009 - estates valued at up to $3,500,000 (that's three and a half million dollars) are excluded.
If $2M or $3.5M isn't enough these days, how much is?
Earned income is taxed at extraordinary rates - i.e., people with jobs who are trying to make their way bear a much larger tax burden than those at the top.
Unless Darleen (who I think works in some level of a government bureaucracy: municipal? county? state? federal? - or am I thinking of somebody else?) or Hugh get most or all of their money from unearned income (by having inherited it, or by living off investment gains or interest, with no need to tap into the principal), I'm puzzled why they'd be so rabid on this subject.
Posted by: Rightwingsnarkle at October 29, 2007 10:12 AM
"If $2M or $3.5M isn't enough these days, how much is?"...well, how much is enough? Answer your own question.
And I'm self employeed, no inheritence, and pay very high rates. I'm not rabid but rather would like to keep more of MY money, that I work hard to EARN.
If you want to dispute the now proven theory of the Laffer Curve then be my guest...most liberals who paid taxes at the top marginal rate in 1980 quit arguing about it a few years later...when they found more money in their pockets. But if you can make the case that top marginal rates of 70% and capital gains rates of 50% will increase revenue for a period of, say, five years, and maintain employment growth and GDP growth then give it your best shot.
Posted by: HughS at October 29, 2007 03:02 PM
"most liberals who paid taxes at the top marginal rate in 1980 quit arguing about it a few years later"
Do you have any data to support this comment, or are you just speculating?
As for disputing "the now proven theory of the Laffer Curve" (again - footnote for this? Somehow, I doubt it. I think you're making shit up.) - I'll leave that to the folks at the Congressional Budget Office who said, in 2005, that the idea behind the Laffer Curve - that you can somehow increase revenue by decreasing tax rates - is an odiferous crock of merde. (pdf file)
Posted by: Rightwingsnarkle at October 29, 2007 05:06 PM
Rightwingsnarkle
I won't footnote your term paper. Nor will I invoke the bureaucratic CBO, and you're wise to leave it there.....rather, I want you to show me some data that refutes this:
"But if you can make the case that top marginal rates of 70% and capital gains rates of 50% will increase revenue for a period of, say, five years, and maintain employment growth and GDP growth then give it your best shot."
Make the case. Show me. Did real Federal revenues grow between 1982 and 2006? Hmmm? What happened to the highest marginal rates in this period?
Here's a link. Do some homework.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/pdf/hist.pdf
Good luck.
Posted by: HughS at October 29, 2007 05:51 PM
Yeah, I figured you were full of shit.
It ain't my "term paper" you can't back up, Hugh, just your own empty claims and fantasies.
Your posturing on the subject of economics is just typical wingnut hubris.
I'll grant you this much - you're one diehard 28 percenter.
Posted by: Rightwingsnarkle at October 29, 2007 07:50 PM
I think Mr Rangal is trying to get rid of the AMT, or at least change its reach. It was originall set up to tax those who might not pay any income taxes at all given the tax loopholes that the rich used to take advantage of.
Thing is, you get rid of AMT and you have a shortfall. The shortfall has to be made up. And it can only be made up by increasing the current marginal rates on ordinary income. Do the math.
I don't know what everyone is getting excited about; tax writing is a difficult complex thing and 435 different Congressmen have thier own ideas about tax reform. Mr Rangel is only one Congressman. Any new tax legislation will reflect a lot of different views.
On thing's certain; there won't be any flat tax. Where do people come up with the idea that the US is going to abandon the progresive income tax?
Posted by: Carl W. Goss at October 29, 2007 10:36 PM
Rightwingsnarkle
And you haven't answered this question:
"Did real Federal revenues grow between 1982 and 2006? Hmmm? What happened to the highest marginal rates in this period?"
You can't and won't because it doesn't fit w/ your convenient economic view.....and BTW Mr.Expert, I live in the world of economics and its result on industry.....it's called finance. I'm not a diehard percenter, either. I'm a diehard 15 percenter.
Posted by: HughS at October 30, 2007 03:00 AM
Snarkle
I do work for the gov at county level and I'm no where "rich"
Rabid? No sir, I'm just stating what I believe to be what is right/wrong. I'm making a moral judgement.
You have every right to the opinion that you believe your neighbor has one too many toys ... it as morally wrong for you to make the government enforce your opinion by confiscating the neighbor's property for "redistribution" as it would be for you to break into his house and "liberate" it yourself.
It is NOT your property. It belongs to the neighbor who earned it and it is his/her wishes on how to use it and pass it on that are paramount.
Posted by: Darleen at October 30, 2007 05:56 AM
So, Darleen, it seems you think that all taxation is immoral coercion. Is that right? Are you advocating the abolition of all taxes?
Did real Federal revenues grow between 1982 and 2006? Hmmm? What happened to the highest marginal rates in this period?
Do you mean in absolute dollars or as a percentage of GDP? Are you assuming that highest marginal rates are the only variable that affects federal revenues? If so, why?
Also, since you apparently buy the Laffer curve, please inform me on what its approximate shape is. Is it a smooth Gaussian distribution? Does it have dips and valleys between the 0%/0 revenue and the 100%/0 revenue endpoints?
Posted by: Josh at October 30, 2007 09:07 AM
So, Darleen's livelihood is supported by tax revenue, yet she wails against taxes. Perhaps she could contribute directly to lowering the cost of government by quitting her job and working in the private sector.
Meanwhile, since Hugh's self-employed in the world of 'finance' (aka a seasonal contractor for H&R Block), he considers himself qualified to expound on economics, and to demand that others answer his meaningless questions.
Anybody who uses the term "death tax" is rabid.
It'll be fun to see him dodge Josh's question.
Posted by: Rightwingsnarkle at October 30, 2007 11:02 AM
Josh
I don't "buy" the Laffer curve; I believe the theory is valid.
That said, here's your data:
From 1982 through 2006 Federal receipts have grown from $938.5 Billion to $3,934 Billion. Current dollar GDP rose from $3,186.8 Billion to $13,392.3 (or $5,189.8 Billion to $11,395.5 Billion in 200 dollars) for the same period.
See: http://www.bea.gov/national/index.htm#gdp
And,
http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=84&FirstYear=1999&LastYear=2010&Freq=Qtr&Java=Y#mid
I don't believe marginal rates are the lone variable effecting federal revenue. The highest marginal rates have fallen dramatically since 1982 (as well as the highest rate on capital gains income) and federal receipts have grown in both absolute and relative dollars.
Your request as to the shape of the curve is denied....hit one of the links and you will have sufficient data to draw your own graph. Perhaps you should ask former Texas Congressman and Senator Phil Graham, PhD (Economics), who risked his nascent political career (thus drawing the wrath of Tip O'Neil) by agreeing with Laffer and joining other Boll weevil Democrats in voting for Reagan's tax cuts in 1982.
Posted by: HughS at October 30, 2007 02:17 PM
woops, msp "Gramm"....must have been that H&R Block spellcheck I used....
Posted by: HughS at October 30, 2007 02:23 PM
So, Darleen, it seems you think that all taxation is immoral coercion.
Did I say that? Please quote me where I did.
Snarkle...there are legitimate services the government provides. They protect citizens and citizen's rights of "life, liberty, pursuit of happiness" (do note the order) from external threat (military), internal threat (police) and provide a non-violent forum for adjudicating transgressions (the court system)
I work in a legitimate area of government -- in a district attorney office.
Our Constitution did provide the Federal government with appropriate manner of funding its legitimate provinces ... through duties and tarrifs. The Founding Fathers eschewed direct taxation because they knew from experience that such taxation was the power to reward or destroy.
As people like Reichy well know... they want class warfare to both enslave the producers and make dependent those that will have no choice but to continue to "elect" leftists who promise more of the same.
Reichy, Rangel, et al, are crack dealers. Giving away just enough to get people hooked.
Posted by: Darleen at October 30, 2007 06:06 PM
"I work in a legitimate area of government -- in a district attorney office."
Well, that's a scary thought. I hope they keep you away from sharp objects.
Posted by: Rightwingsnarkle at October 30, 2007 07:24 PM
The judiciary is a legitimate function of government, snark.
You disagree?
Or is it that you don't have any rational rejoinder?
Posted by: Darleen at October 30, 2007 08:23 PM
It's really amazing the number of people who, while making their living in government, go around supporting a political party dedicated to reducing the size of government. Of course this ideology never applies to the agency they happen to be working for. Oh no. Their work is essential.
So, cut the other departments, but leave ours alone.
The hypocrisy of it all! And those in law enforcement agencies are the worst offenders.
Posted by: Carl W. Goss at October 31, 2007 11:27 AM
"The Founding Fathers eschewed direct taxation because they knew from experience that such taxation was the power to reward or destroy."
Yeah, and they were also quite thrilled with the concept of a unitary executive who's not subject to any law; detaining citizens indefinitely, without charges, and with no access to counsel; with foreign entanglements - particularly invasions and occupations; and with maintaining a large standing army.
Listening to Darleen invoke the founding fathers is like listening to Hugh's superficial pontifications on economics.
PS - Good point, Carl. As the noted expert Dr. Robert Hare has observed, "Psychopaths have no difficulty infiltrating the domains of politics, government, the military, and law enforcement."
(now wait for uninformed reflex bashing by Doreen for "not supporting our troops" or some such bullshit)
Posted by: Rightwingsnarkle at October 31, 2007 01:59 PM
Snarkle
You still haven't answered my questions. Why don't you specifically identify the superficiality and, while you’re at it, bring me some actual data instead of a two year old article from a CBO bureaucrat’s eight page brief.
Posted by: HughS at October 31, 2007 02:57 PM
Carl
You don't believe PROVIDE for the common defense (police/military/judiciary) are legitimate government functions?
I'm all ears on this one. Do tell how one can protect citizens and their rights without it.
Posted by: Darleen at November 1, 2007 06:58 AM
Snarkle
Like Carl, please do explain why common defense is not a legitimate function of government.
Your descent into irrationality is telling. And frankly the "ooh there are nutz in law enforcement" is laughable
Posted by: Darleen at November 1, 2007 07:01 AM
Now Mz Darleen, nobody's nuts. I never said that. Read my post. There's a lot of governmental functions that are legitimate. I was saying something about the hypocrisy you sometimes get from those employed in law enforcement. That's all.
***
One thing’s certain, come budget time, you don’t hear much about cutting the size of the government down at the police station, or in the local prosecutor’s office. No indeed. A strange metamorphosis develops. The most determined ideological conservative, somehow or another become a fiscal liberal.
That cop or prosecutor downtown,--you know, the kind you sometimes hear ranting away in the lunchroom about how bad the liberals are, suddenly shuts up and becomes yes, a fiscal liberal. You can even read their minds. They’re thinking: just how much money will the department will get out of the Board or Council this year.
Of course, once a budget is passed they become conservatives again.
Not hypocrites maybe, just spotty and inconstant.
Posted by: Carl W. Goss at November 1, 2007 10:44 AM
Let's go real slow for Darleen and Hugh's benefit, as we take a match to the sad, stale, dried-up strawmen they keep tossing our way:
Darleen: "please do explain why common defense is not a legitimate function of government."
Who said that? Nobody that I've read in this thread. My guess is you've made this position up in your own mind. Why would you do that? I'd guess that it suits your purposes for some reason, but that's just my own speculation.
"frankly the "ooh there are nutz in law enforcement" is laughable"
I guess you think it's funny, though I'm not sure why you would. Is it because you don't believe that there aren't any people in "law enforcement" and other domains who are mentally unhealthy to some degree, in any of the ways that mental health professionals use to assess and measure these things?
If so, that's an irrational stance for you to take. Maybe it's because you have no understanding of such fields as psychology, human behavior, social psychology, mental health, and other related disciplines.
But these are just the little straw men you've thrown up this time, to distract attention to my main point, which is that you invoked the founding fathers to justify your own positions on taxation, while conveniently ignoring the basic precepts that they wrote into the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and which various of them elaborated on in such works as the Federalist Papers, precepts which are in serious danger because of the actions of the authoritarian cult you seem to worship.
Just to remind you:
- This is a nation of laws, and no person is above the law;
- This is a government based on separate, but equal, branches of government for making, interpreting, and carrying out these laws;
- Citizens charged with crimes are presumed innocent until proven guilty, have the right to know what they are being accused of, to see the evidence, to have a speedy trial with representation by counsel, and to have their guilt or innocence determined by a jury of their peers.
The founding fathers were also very leery of standing armies and foreign entanglements, having been on the other end of both before engaging in treason and revolting against their faraway king.
But you knew this stuff already, right? I mean, you're a good patriotic American, and you went to school and you learned this stuff, and you keep up on things by reading and otherwise staying informed.
Because, if your government did anything contrary to what the founding fathers intended, you'd get pretty worked up about it, wouldn't you?
I'm sure you would.
As for Hugh - read whatever you want, believe whatever numbers you want. Your questions are annoying and have little meaning. You remind me of the cartoon cowboy shooting his gun at the ground while shouting "Dance! Dance!" to some other schmuck, only your pistol has nothing but damp caps, and nobody else in town is even paying attention.
Posted by: Rightwingsnarkle at November 1, 2007 11:55 AM
Oops, bad grammar.
Please replace the sentence, "Is it because you don't believe that there aren't any people in "law enforcement" and other domains who are mentally unhealthy..." with:
Is it because you believe that there aren't any people in "law enforcement" and other domains who are mentally unhealthy
Posted by: Rightwingsnarkle at November 1, 2007 11:58 AM
"On thing's certain; there won't be any flat tax. Where do people come up with the idea that the US is going to abandon the progresive income tax?"
Perhaps because people on both sides of the aisle hate the IRS with the fury of a thousand suns?
Income tax should be abolished entirely. Government does not have the right to decide what parts of what people should be _permitted_ to keep.
http://fairtax.org/
Posted by: Stephen at November 1, 2007 12:11 PM