When the state legislature suspended Initiative 960’s blatantly unconstitutional two-thirds requirement for passing tax increases —a measure approved by a mere 51% margin in a low-turnout, off-year election — the Seattle Times editorial board excoriated lawmakers for violating the sacred will of the people.
“Surely the people wanted it that way,” the Times insisted, citing both long-past measures and a recent made-for-TV opinion survey, conveniently assuming that populist pose they are wont to assume when, you know, it conveniently suits their purpose.
Yet the Times’ faith in the intelligence and good will of voters apparently only goes so far, for while they’ll defend to the death a tax-limiting measure approved by barely 20% of registered voters, should our legislators even dare to publicly discuss the notion of putting an income tax measure on the ballot for an up or down popular vote, well, that would be a “truly awful idea.”
The tax measure is a mix of desperation and splashes of bribery and extortion … even asking the question assumes voters are chumps.
Huh. Then why so worried? If the will of the people is so sacred, and their say at the ballot so well informed, what is the harm in putting this proposal before voters? I mean, if the idea – a 4.5% income tax on households earning over $400,000 a year, in exchange for a 1 cent cut in the state sales tax — is so “truly awful,” voters can be trusted to reject it, right?
Right?
I mean, the irony is so thick you could cut it with a knife. On the one hand, the Times lavishly defends I-960, a measure whose most prominent provision explicitly forces lawmakers to put proposed tax increases on the ballot, while on the other hand, the Times viciously ridicules Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown for proposing to do exactly that. Could the Times’ editors possibly be bigger hypocrites?
I’m not sure what the Times really thinks of Washington voters, but there’s little question they assume their readers to be chumps.
Well I’m sure the ST will straighten itself out soon and call for excluding all people earning less than $400k per year from the voting rolls and then they’ll be consistent.
I’m coming very, very close to breaking my longtime breakfast reading habit.
I miss the PI in print. Heck, even the STimes was more palatable back then, when they had to compete for the print reader.
I think giving special tax breaks to businesses, such as newspapers, should require two-thirds approval.
They could be more hypocritical, but it would require carpenters to come in and widen all the doorways to fit their massive heads.
Theft is theft folks. You want to commit armed robbery on successful people and give the money to less wealthy ones? You want the top 20% of voters to carry the financial burden of government for the bottom 50%? And you don’t find this immoral? Unethical? Unfair? Wow, what a twisted world view.
re 1
Mike,
Goldy would like to exclude anyone earning over 400,000 from the rolls. Irrational behavior on the part of the ST doesn’t excuse it on the part of a blogger.
Well, they may be hypocritical in their rationale, but at least the Times is consistent in application. Any tax which might potentially brush against the pocketbook of the Blethen family is, according to the Times’s editorials, and extraordinary bad idea. Ignore the Times explanation, and focus on their actions, and their agenda is clear.
As for me, the Times is rapidly becoming something read for entertainment value only. “Surely this must be satire”, I mutter to myself, on the rare occasion when I read their editorials.
While most people will look at the proposed high-earner income tax in terms of revenue, it’s an important first step toward equalizing the huge disparity in the distribution of tax burden between high and low income households in our “soak the poor” tax system.
The poorest 20% of Washington families pay over 5 times as much of their income to state/local taxes as the richest 20% — 17% vs. 3% (source: Gates Commission report).
The main reason for this is the state’s heavy reliance on the sales tax: Poor people generally have to spend all of their income, whereas affluent people tend to plow a large percentage of theirs into savings, investments, out-of-state travel and expenditures, and other things that aren’t subject to the sales tax.
Taxing incomes above $400,000 and reducing the sales tax by a penny wouldn’t equalize the tax burden by any means. We would still have a very unfair and regressive state tax structure. But it would make it a little less so.
In addition, it would provide tax relief to those who need it most and perhaps even stimulate a bit more consumer spending in an economy that sorely needs it. A person making $1 million a year can readily afford the extra $27,000 in taxes, considering he’s paying next-to-nothing now.
After all, statistically, that guy is paying only $30,000 a year now, while a family making only $15,000 is paying over $2,500 a year. If this measure gives that family $100 of tax relief, it makes a difference to them, while the extra $30K paid by the multimillionaire would support such tax relief for 300 families.
Why have we waited so long?
@5. lostinaseaofblue 03/08/2010 at 11:39 am,
You are off your nut. Progressive tax policies and laws are as old as this nation.
You claiming it is theft is beyond ridiculous.
If you really don’t like the tax policies of this nation and its government and long to be lost in a glibertarian paradise, move your preaching @$$ to Somalia.
The person with a twisted world view is you.
Because newspapers are dangerous to an informed citizenry, they should be taxed like cigarettes, say $6.00 per copy. If people had to pay $6.75 a day to read the Seattle Times, they would be forced to cut back, and we would have an intellectually healthier society.
@5 “Theft is theft folks.”
I agree! Theft of public services by the affluent needs to stop! It’s time they paid their fair share.
# 5: Penalty flag for excessive use of a false analogy.
Taxation is not theft, and never has been. It is the system whereby we assess collect money to be spent for the public benefit. If we made it voluntary, too many would want to receive the benefit without paying for it, so we have to make it mandatory. The overriding role of the taxing authorities is to collect tax revenues, and nothing more.
As for the system by which we allocate taxes, there are many ways to do this. You could put a tax on each person or household. You could tax the number of feet each household takes up on the street front (as they traditionally do in many places in Britain and Europe, thereby explaining why they have buildings which are tall, narrow, and deep). You can tax based upon use (toll bridges, entrance fees to parks, etc.). You can tax based upon value (real estate and personal property taxes, etc.). Or you can tax based upon income.
The income tax simply recognizes that the larger burden of the tax falls on those most able to afford it, as well as those who have most profited under our current system of government. That’s not theft, it’s reasonable logic.
Now, if you want to argue specific rates and ratios, those are value judgements for which there may be a multitude of acceptable answers, given certain known variables (amounts of money needed to be collected, the amount which can be paid without severe hardship on certain income levels, etc.).
Anyone who believes the nonsense you wrote has to do so for the same reason Germans wrote the nonsense about Jewish people being less human. First you make someone worth less in terms of rights, then you take those rights away.
But to address points.
Fair is fair, and I agree our system is regressive. So every citizen of Washington can pay a 5% (for example) income tax, and that will be fair. Otherwise you’re asking those who ‘can afford it,’ which isn’t your decision by the way, to pay for everyone else.
We do have a right to equal treatment under the law, Rabbit and Goldy. Or did you forget that?
@5, 6 — Given the reality of how Washington’s tax system soaks the poor and gives a free ride to the affluent, people like “Lost” who post comments calling any effort — however slight — to redistribute tax burdens from the overtaxed poor to the undertaxed affluent “theft” and “armed robbery” have no credibility whatsoever. In fact, remarks like this is so far over the top, they deserve social ostracism. Someone like “Lost” who thinks the wealthy 3-percenters are being abused by poor 17-percenters isn’t merely antisocial, he arguably should be considered a sociopath.
@6 I think it’s clear YOU are by far the most irrational person in this thread. Wild-eyed, foaming-at-the-mouth screeching about taxing rich people who pay 3% of their income to the state a little bit more to give a little tax relief to poor people paying 17% of theirs? Give us a fucking break. That’s indefensible, and you’re a royal ass.
Re 14
Be still my heart, the mugger is angry at the victim for fighting back!
Wealthy people don’t use more government resources, they use far far fewer. Last I checked most of the people you’d like to mug don’t get food stamps, social security, the benefit of public education (most send kids to private schools) etc. Yet they pay for all of these. They don’t use more of the roads. They don’t use the police or fire departments more. They pay more in property taxes and all other forms and still this isn’t enough for common gangsters like progressives. You won’t be happy until the sting of your own mediocrity is salved with by taking anyone better than you down to your level.
@13. lostinaseaofblue 03/08/2010 at 11:53 am
flagged for Godwin’s Law.
Only the dimmest of bulbs would conflate the income tax with the Holocaust.
@14 Your silly attempt to dignify what you’re doing in this thread as “fighting back” is laughably pathetic.
I think we’ve seen Lost’s true colors today: Tax the shit out of the poor so the rich can ride for free. Deal with him accordingly.
@9 “You claiming it is theft is beyond ridiculous.”
The applicable word here is “offensive.”
I’m going to spike what progressives mistakenly believe to be their big gun.
ANYONE can do as well as the wealthy in this country. To say they owe more because society gave them more is just wrong. They made good decisions and profited accordingly. Make similarly good decisions and you can too. Or accept that you’re happy where you are and stop being jealous 2 year olds.
@12 Penalty flag, hell, eject him from the game for extremely unsportsmanlike conduct!
Re 19
Odd for an attorney to ignore the whole argument that rebuts this ‘ride for free’ lie and still claim the lie to be true.
With the dems over turning I-960, why don’t our elected representatives trust Washington voters?
@12 “Taxation is not theft, and never has been.”
I actually don’t agree with you, rhp6033. The kind of taxation Lost is shilling for today is indeed theft.
Re 20
See, if you aren’t a thief you don’t need to worry about someone calling you one. You are or are conspiring to engage in theft, so it pricks your conscience. Maybe there is a human being behind the progressive after all.
@13 You’ve gotta be off your meds. Call your doc, quick, before your head explodes!
Yeah, still don’t see a progressive argument for why the wealthy who use fewer government services should pay for more. Other than the anti-American ‘because they can ‘afford’ it.’ Anyone? Anyone?
I just consulted with the Great Mother Rabbit Spirit to find out what’s gonna happen to Lost when he goes to Hell. She said there’s a special compartment there for people like him where they have to pay all the taxes they evaded in this life.
Hey Bunny,
How about the equal treatment under the law? Is it equal to steal from one to give to another? You must have gone to a damned interesting school growing up if you think so.
Fireman @24,
The Dems do trust voters. They trust that voters will not toss ’em out for doing the right thing to save crucial services on which voters are relying more than ever in a tough economy.
This is a Republic, and that’s how Republics work.
16, 21 — You are so far removed from reality I have to question your actual sanity.
Don’t progressives ever even try to answer questions of fact when they don’t support the lunacy of progressive thought?
I have yet to see one of you defend your indefensible ‘because they can afford it they owe it’ argument.
Rabbit still hasn’t explained why the rich get a free ride when most government benefits go to the poor.
Still don’t see how equal protection is served by armed robbery of one class of citizens.
You guys really hate reality don’t you?
@26 Do you think I give a shit what some screeching monkey like you calls me?
Well, you’re right, I do! When someone of your repute calls me a “thief,” I know for sure I’m doing something right.
In fact, I am a thief, but only in the stock market. Undoubtedly there are countless contractors like you who stuff money in their pockets by paying less than their fair share of taxes — or, in some cases, none at all — but are hopelessly inept at managing it. I relieve them of it when they invest stupidly. Think of this as transferring wealth from the stupid to the smart, if you wish. Me, I think of it as plain old stealing. The way I do it, though, is perfectly legal.
re 31
Really? You pillage 15% of the voters and give the loot to the other 85% and expect not to get a voting majority for your thuggery?
Goldy, you really need not to let the democrat political strategy out of the bag so openly.
Re 34
And still no answer. Because you can’t answer the points you think I’ll follow the bouncing insult ball and forget I made them.
No dice.
Hey Lost, why don’t you go Galt on us and STFU?
@35 Lost’s mouth has only two speeds, wide open throttle and out of fuel.
And the Seattle Time applauded and said it was prudent for the legislature to override voter approved initiatives that lowered class sizes and insured COLAS for educators.
The Seattle Times editorial board is dishonestly craven.
@33 “Rabbit still hasn’t explained why the rich get a free ride when most government benefits go to the poor.”
There’s no duty to reply to bullshit. Get the facts straight, then maybe we can have a discussion.
For those of you who are new to this blog and are wondering why Goldy writes so man anti-Seattle Times posts, some believe he once applied for a job at the Times, but wasn’t hired.
Well, I’m going to go and work. Oh forgot, you’re progressives so you don’t understand this word.
See, when a big person goes out of the house during the day and does something to earn money he or she is ‘working.’ When they go out of the house and demand money for work they didn’t do, or didn’t do well they are ‘progressives.’
@41 For those of you who are new to this blog and wondering who Troll’s sources called “some” are, they’re the lice crawling in his scalp.
Hey Goldy–
Idea–
Let’s put it back on the ballot again this Fall?
Look, the Democrats really screwed up overspending in both Boomtimes and when the recession was obvious to everyone…but them.
Welll, I take that back, they admitted the recession was upon us and STILL increased spending and gave raises.
Ridiculous.
@42 You work? Coulda fooled me. I don’t see how the amount of time you spend here leaves you any time to work.
BTW–
Perhaps we should exclude Government Employees from the voter rolls??
Why should they vote to increases taxes so they don’t have to take salary & benefit cuts???
Take a hint from todays Rasmussen about Big, Costly Government–
Monday, March 08, 2010
since everyone only gets 1 vote, why doesnt everyone pay the same tax percentage?
oh, I know why, because it actually makes too much damn sense – and we all know NOTHING makes sense when it comes to the govt.
@44 Your idea is fine, as far as it goes, but the content needs improvement. Let’s put this on the ballot:
Washington’s tax system requires the richest households to pay 3% of their income to the state, and requires the poorest families to pay 17% of their income to the state. If you want to keep this tax system, check the box that says “Yes.” If you don’t want to keep this tax system, check the box that says “No.” If the “No” votes win, the existing tax system will be replaced by a flat-rate income tax in which everyone pays the same percentage of their income to the state.
[ ] Yes, keep Washington’s unfair and regressive tax system that overcharges the poor and gives the rich a free ride.
[ ] No, change Washington’s tax system to a fairer tax system in which everyone pays the same percentage of their income to the state.
@46 I’m sure you would favor a system under which only property-owning white males are allowed to vote.
Cynical was born 250 years too late. He would feel right at home in the 1700s. That era was a white male property (and slave) owning cheap labor conservative’s dream.
@49…how about we do away with all taxes – and I mean ALL of them.
Then we we establish a stable, flat rate that everyone pays(lets say 15%) – no exceptions.
What could be more equitable than that?
It is the govts responsibility to treat each of its citizens equally. Taxing some people at a higher rate than others(or not taxing some people at all) is directly opposed to treating each citizen equally.
“Well, I’m going to go and work. Oh forgot, you’re progressives so you don’t understand this word.”
I took a break from work to read this? Thanks a bunch. I suppose you also wonder why I occasionally treat some people here like shit.
@48 That’s what I’ve been saying all along. I’ll gladly swap the current system for that one.
@idiot: 35
Hahha: How funny it is too see Lost trying to justify his neanderthal opinions.
Short Lost: Tax the hell out of the poor people. Let the rich people pay a pittance.
Sorry lost, the graduated income tax has been around in this country a long time..all the way through the boom times of the 50s and 60s.
There is a reason why rich people should pay more: An income tax is not going to prevent them from eating, buying a car or a house.
The middle class is suffering, the rich corporations are shipping good jobs overseas or hiring foreign workers and what does a complete fool like lost want to do?
Cut education even more so that we can’t even supply our own workers anymore.
Another great idea from a moron like Lost.
You not only can’t marshal the logic to support your pathetically simpleminded views, but you also can’t even justify your anti-christian beliefs (destroy the poor and coddle the rich).
@ 42:
We all work, you schmuck. As for your statement @ 21:
Did the Blethens “make the good decisions” to be born Blethens? Do you think our public policy should enable a hereditary aristocracy? Evidently you do.
I think hereditary aristocracies are a threat to the republic, and should be taxed into ineffectiveness, which is a more civilized alternative to the guillotine or the firing squad.
@54…well there you have it – lebowski and the rabbit agree…it MUST be the perfect solution. :)
A guest on the Dori Monson show just said that over 60% of the state’s budget goes toward salaries, and that 5,217 state employees make over $100,000 a year.
@47 Bad news for you today, Klown. A new poll shows Obama beats ALL the gopnuts.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.....181205.pdf
@5
It isn’t “theft” when enacted tax rates impose taxes on people. It is only “theft” when someone with no legal authority to do so takes your money without your persmission, which then constitutes a crime. When the legislature votes to impose taxes, and it is signed into law by the Governor, then the tax is both legal and compulsory.
FYI for all you folks with your alternative taxation proposals, Timmy is waiting for you over at (un)Sound. Take you checkbooks, credit cards and wingnut pipe dreams on over and jump on the
bandgrifter wagon.Another Office Building Shooting
Another guy with an agenda went to a workplace with a loaded gun today.
“The shooting happened … in a high-rise office building …. Dallas police spokesman … says a man … opened fire on two people.”
http://www.aolnews.com/nation/.....t/19388064
Roger Rabbit Commentary: When will the madness of letting people like this have guns finally end?
Republicans are not so much hypocrites as they are practitioners of Doublethink.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink
@58 Which means 96.5% of the state workforce makes less than $100K per year.
@61….why do you hate America? Shouldnt all Americans be treated equally by their government?
Just because someone makes terrible choices in life(ie dropping out of high school, not studying, has a mile long criminal history which prevents them from being decently employed, etc), that should not preclude them from paying THEIR fair share – which should be equal what the rest of us are paying.
Now, I know not everyone who is poor is that way because of shitty choices.
It is inherit to the govt to treat us all equally(and in this case taxing us with an equal percentage of our income) – it is not the govts business or concern how much $$ people have left over after that.
By contrast, 5.63% of the overall workforce made over $100K as of 2005, five years ago, even though the state workforce has more workers with college and advanced degrees.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What.....ver_100000
Looks to me like state workers are underpaid.
@58
A poster on the HA blog said that the Troll kills about 3 goats a week because of his particularly deviant tastes. Some would call this animal abuse but apparently the Troll says that it is consensual.
Slow day on Wall Street — I made only $100 today. But hey, that’s $12.50/hr, only a buck less than that $105,000-a-year liquor store clerk gets, and more than Goatfucker wants to pay state employees. And I didn’t lift a paw for it. Free money beats working for cheap-labor assholes.
In case anyone missed it, last week Mr. Cynical posted the absurd assertion that a $13.50/hr state liquor store clerk made $105,000 of “total compensation” last year. He regurgitated that nonsense from BIAW’s web site without fact-checking. What happened is the Liquor Control Board has two employees with the same name, neither of whom makes over $35,000/yr, and BIAW’s software combined them. BIAW also double-counted leave pay, and God knows what else. Here are the facts:
Thomas D. Taylor, liquor store clerk, is an hourly employee making $13.50/hr. (When OFM lists an employee’s pay as an hourly amount, it usually means his hours are variable or less than full time.)
Thomas D. Taylor, warehouse operator, makes a monthly salary of about $2,800.
If you search BIAW’s web site for Liquor Control Board employees named Thomas D. Taylor, you come up with only one, even though the official OFM employee list clearly shows two different employees named Thomas D. Taylor. It’s obvious what happened: BIAW’s data compiler lumped them together.
65 L
I am pretty sure that a revenue-neutral flat tax in this state would be over 15%, but a lot of that depends on what every tax system hinges on–NOT what the percentage is but rather what is taxable.
If a lot more shit that rich people have a lot of is taxable, then I would be a lot more receptive to a flat “tax n% of whatever is taxable” argument. Tax n% of yacht value, jewelry value, airplane value, rental income, stock options, all income from any source including capital gains and passive income, loan interest. No depreciation, no phantom losses, no depletion credits. Sound like a plan?
To make $105,000 of “total” compensation, including 30% benefits (figure from Seattle Times), a $13.50/hr liquor store clerk would have to work a 40-hour week plus 50 hours a week of overtime (based on time and a half x 1.3). Although I haven’t checked, I think that’s more hours than the stores are open.
@70 State/local taxes in Washington amount to roughly 8% of personal income.
The rich use way more government services than the poor do.
The US court system is used by the rich every day to protect their contracts, patents, copyrights, liens, intellectual properties, real estate holdings, tariffs, duties, profits, among other things. How about treasury bills, government bonds and contracts? These are services the government provides that can only be taken advantage of by the rich.
Corporations and the rich are given tax breaks, bailouts, low cost loans, grants. The US Department of Commerce regularly lobbies foreign governments and trade bodies on behalf of US corporations. Our military protects international commerce by making sure oil tankers and freighters are not highjacked.
Why does anyone read the ST?
My wife started our subscription again. Took about 5 mins to read everything of interest, about ten minutes to dispose of the waste paper. Bad deal.
Save the dolphins!
Northrup Pulls Out Of Aerial Tanker Bidding
“Northrop Grumman has decided not to bid on the Air Force refueling tanker contract, leaving Boeing’s Everett-built 767 as the sole airplane competing for the $40 billion program,” the Seattle Times reports. A formal announcement from the company was expected at 1:00 PM after the stock market closed.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.c.....ker09.html
Boeing stock, which was off 69 cents in regular trading, edged slightly higher in after-hours trading.
Maybe the Seattle Times is reacting locally to how the DUMMOCRAPTIC Party is reacting federally regarding health care. Witness Nancy Pelosi’s recent remarks about the American populace.
State Senate Passes Tax Package
“After two days of contentious debate, the state Senate on Sunday approved a tax package that would raise $890 million over the next 16 months and is centered on a temporary three-tenths-of-a-cent sales tax increase,” the Seattle Times reports.
The tax increase would plug 31.7% of the $2.8 billion revenue shortfall. The rest will come from spending cuts, federal assistance, and dipping into the state’s “rainy day” fund.
The bill passed on a 25-23 vote, with 6 Democrats voting “no.” They are: Rodney Tom of Medina; Steve Hobbs of Lake Stevens, Claudia Kauffman of Kent, Derek Kilmer of Gig Harbor, Chris Marr of Spokane and Tim Sheldon of Potlatch.
Sen. Craig Pridemore was one of 3 Democrats who voted against a $1-a-pack increase in cigaret taxes.
Save the whales!
And what do you call a corrupt attorney so corrupt he can’t even become a corrupt senator? You call him Judge Rabbit.
Corrupt in the sense of a soul turning into slime. Read yesterday’s Bible bash. Try to read Roger’s swill while trying to imagine yourself in his courtroom seeking justice or fairness or sanity.
He’s unglued. He’s a dangerously unhinged son of a bitch who is building up before our eyes into his 19th nervous breakdown. A few months ago he had his Maggie meltdown, skirting the skirts of harassment. This time his crazy is being constructed without a catalyst.
But for a progressive, that’s progress.
Rasmussen skews tracking poll rollups! H/T to Jed at DKos. The data is very clear and indisputable, here (with lots of informative charts):
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/3/8/7346/81628
Rasmussen is a consistent (out)lier. And not exactly breaking news, Klynical is a fucking wingnut lier and can safely be ignored (not that most of us don’t already do that).
@80 I’m more dolphin-like than you are, neener neener!
@70…
the only things “taxable” would be income – period.
and yes, that includes stocks. I would tax any stock gains per year by the same percentage.
No, I cant see taxing someone because they have a big boat or jewelry. That is assinine and defeats the idea that we all pay the same percentage based upon our income.
The idea is to tax someone’s income, not on what they do with whats left over after they were taxed. THAT is none of the state’s business or concern.
@73…subsidized housing? subsidized food?, subsidized health care?
and protecting those tankers does not just help the rich, it helps ALL of us who put gas in our cars tanks.
and I think ALL tax breaks should be eliminated. Tax companies just the same way people are taxed – a percentage of their income – no exceptions.
but you can’t carry on/
’cause here come the judge.
– Sammy Davis Jr Jr
Good. Dolphin of the Sea, chock full of dolphin, is my favorite tuna. I’ll eat it in remembrance of you.
@84
Subsidized Maritime Law and the protection of the Coast Guard and Navy? Subsidized Ports bringing in goods to sell? Would business run if the Gov’t didn’t subsidize every single aspect of transportation? Buses, freeways, street level roads, sidewalks, air traffic control. All are provided by the government to enhance commerce. Think for a sec about every Municipal, Superior, and Federal courthouse in the nation. All those employees spend most of their time protecting the business interests of the ownership class. That’s millions upon hundreds of billions of dollars.
Zotz,
Comparing Rasmussen to Kos is like comparing the US Army to the Iraqi Army.
Rasmussen has a known track record of being correct. It’s in the public record. Kos has what? Kook-aid!
Don’t forget some of the biggest subsidies of all: the subsidized housing available to homeowners in the form of tax-deductable interest and real estate tax payments. It’s not even limited to one home, they can use it for their vacation properties!!!!! And the more you make, the greater the subsidy!!!!!!
And yet conservatives begrudge the poor getting some food stamps.
“ANYONE can do as well as the wealthy in this country. To say they owe more because society gave them more is just wrong. They made good decisions and profited accordingly. Make similarly good decisions and you can too.”
This is the position, in a nutshell, of the people who have been either extraordinarily lucky or born priviledged. Few will admit that they are where they are by pure luck or birthright. Almost all claim that they deserve their position and wealth because they are smarter, harder-working, more diligent, or more moral than everyone below them.
Sure, they will sometimes conceed an exception or two, but insist that the principle holds true regardless. It’s an extension of the Puritan/Calvinist belief that God favors those who are moral and practice good habits, and withholds his favor on those that do not. In practice, it was used to reward the wealthy with more wealth and power, and to withhold it from the poor. It is also completely contrary to the spirit and letter of the teachings from the Book of Job.
In practice here in the U.S. in modern times, I’ve had plenty of experience observing whether or not this principle is true. I’ve done financial counseling at my church for many years now. The one thing I’ve seen is that there are plenty of wealthy people who have made extraordinarily bad decisions but who have not been penalized significantly, with their parents or employers bailing them out repeatedly. I’ve also seen plenty of hard-working, moral people who have done everything right but can’t get a foot off the bottom stair of economic life. In my experience, economic success in America has very little to do with what you know, or how hard you work. It does, however, have a great deal to do with WHO you know.
Therefore, there is no moral superiority in being wealthy, or in being poor. It’s simply an economic condition.
Of course, the really wealthy today are usually those who benefited from government investment or policies in one form or another.
Bill Gates, Paul Allen, and Steve Jobs all benefited from the U.S. investment in the space program, which funded the initial research and development in micro computer chips which made the PC possible. The internet, likewise, was a government funded program which was opened to public use – without charge – by the Clinton administration, thereby allowing the considerable exansion of the PC market due to the internet revolution.
And lets not forget the recent wealth enjoyed by defense contractors, who benefited from Rumsfield’s policy of hiring contractors to perform work which used to be performed by soldiers, sailors, and airmen, making those contractors extraordinarily wealthy.
I could go on, but I’ve got other things to do today….
I wonder how many people who voted for I-960 were ineligible felons?
Re 89 and 90
First, I apologize for abusive speech in lieu of real argument.
Second, you are talking half a percent at the top, not the top quarter of earners in this country. If you take that 25% who pay 80% of federal taxes luck plays a small role compared to discipline and hard work. More to the point, Goldy is talking about this 25% of hard working dues paying folks in referring to a ‘conservative flat tax’ only paid by the affluent.
Yes some are born unlucky and can’t seem to put a foot right financially, even doing the right things. But the vast majority who do those things will do well by them.
lost,
Sometimes you make sense, and sometimes you are just full of it. rhp just handed you your ass. I have to wonder how much life you have experienced. Are you 16 years old, living in your parents’ basement? rhp’s reference to Job was most appropriate. Calvinism is crap. Enough of the nonsense. Bad things happen to good people, and good things happen to bad people, and, frankly, telling the difference between good people and bad people is not very easy.
Proud,
We can agree to disagree on tax policy. we can agree to disagree on how key a role luck plays in a persons’ life.
But the numbers the IRS provides don’t lie. 25% of taxpayers do provide 80% of the revenue, a clearly unreasonable situation.
And I stand by my statement, whether through the callow eyes of inexperience or the eyes of one who has had bad and good luck “and treated those two imposters just the same.”
lost: “But the numbers the IRS provides don’t lie. 25% of taxpayers do provide 80% of the revenue, a clearly unreasonable situation.”
I’m in that 25%. I’m an employer. Simply, I disagree that there is a “clearly unreasonable situation.” I don’t get it at all, lost. My partners and I are trying to figure out how to pay for our employees’ increased private healthcare insurance, up 28% this year. 28fucking%. And, you think we worry about taxes? I’m all for healthcare reform, even the limited reform that is currently being talked about by Obama. We may have to lay someone off if a break doesn’t come from somewhere. And, trust me, it isn’t because someone isn’t working hard enough.
@94 “25% of taxpayers do provide 80% of the revenue, a clearly unreasonable situation.”
Why is it unreasonable when 20% of taxpayers own 85% of the wealth, receive 80% of capital income, and over 60% of total income?
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whor.....ealth.html
There are several valid reasons for the progressive income tax. First, people at the bottom need their income for subsistence. Second, the wealthy receive more benefit from government spending. For example, taxpayer-funded education provides business owners with a skilled workforce. Third, it helps prevent excessive concentration of wealth that ultimately destroys political freedom.
Just out of curiosity, how would George W. Bush’s life been different if he had been raised in Texas as the son of a blue-collar worker?
1. He would not have gone to Yale. If he were lucky, he might have gotten into community college, perhaps a state school – but only because of federal financial aid and student loan programs. Private school would have been unaffordable.
2. His student deferrment would have expired when he graduated. He would have been drafted shortly thereafter. There was a long waiting list for the National Guard, there was no way he could jump to the front of it without very big political connections.
3. As a college graduate, Bush might have had the opportunity to go to O.C.S., or he might have just been an ordinary grunt, shipped off to Vietnam, Europe, or any other place where the military needed a warm body.
4. Bush wouldn’t have been allowed to leave his military commitment early, fail to meet his obligations or obey orders from his superior officer, or get transferred so he could work on some political campaign. Without having a father who was a Senator, GOP Chairman, and head of the CIA, Bush’s failure to toe the line in the military might have had serious consequences which would dog him for the rest of his life.
5. With a C-average in college, there is NO WAY Bush could have ever gotten into graduate school to get an MBA, much less Harvard, without his families’ connections.
6. Upon discharge Bush might have gone back to Texas and gotten a job buying oil rights from farmers (assuming he could get that job without his father’s help). He might have even formed a company to handle oil and mineral rights, as he did in real life. But when the oil market went south, his father’s friends wouldn’t have bailed him out by buying his company at a profit – twice. Instead, the extent of help his father could have provided was allowing him to come back home to live until he got another job.
7. Fast-forward to the present day. The last decade hasn’t been kind to Bush. He lost his job and his 401(k) in the Enron crash, and the job he got after that he lost in the post-9/11 crash. He’s been working temporary contract jobs ever since, without health insurance or retirement benefits. Instead of spending his last years prior to retirement building up his 401(k), he’s now withdrawing from it to meet current living expenses. He’s looking forward to being eligible for social security retirement benefits and Medicare, they will be a big help.
Of course, this never happened, because Bush had his father’s connections which propped him up at every turn. He didn’t need to make good decisions – the good ones were made for him, and he was buffered from the effect of the bad decisions. But if you ask Bush, he will assure you that he got where he is today by intelligence, hard work and clean living (at least, since he quit drinking). Poor guy – he was born on third base, and he thinks he hit a triple.