Elitism and the progressive tax system
posted at 10:06 am on October 25, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
I read different blogs to get different perspectives and to keep up with the arguments on the Left, usually at sites with a mix of contributors like AOL’s Political Machine. Tommy Christopher both blogs and reports at the site, and while I disagree strenuously with Tommy, he’s a good writer and almost always worth a read. Yesterday, Tommy wrote an interesting defense of the progressive tax system and threw in some snark at elitism that once again shows a misunderstanding of the concept:
Now, I know that there are tens of millions of people who believe, as I do, that a progressive tax is about fairness, about not just the ability to pay, but the degree to which a wealthier person benefits from our common possessions. That position, like any that disagrees with a Republican position, has been dubbed “elitist.”
If that’s the case, then I say “Pass the arugula!” As I’ve said before, I come from a long line of working-class people, civil servants and tradesman, and I’m in the lower end of that economic bracket myself. Where I come from, a man takes care of his responsibilities and doesn’t complain. He pays his taxes. And when he gets somewhere, he remembers where he came from.
I would love to hear from all of the other “elitists” out there, the teacher, the construction worker, the waitress, the meatpacker, who think that people ought to pay their fair share. People who understand that the burden of these hard times is not falling on those who earn over $250,000.00. It’s “elitists” like us that have carried the weight.
First, let’s tackle his defense of the progressive tax system. Tommy claims that the federal government somehow benefits the wealthy more than the working class. I’m certain that will be news to both. To the extent that one can calculate direct benefits and costs, the cost burden already falls almost entirely on the higher earners. The top 25% pay 67% of the income taxes received by the government, and the top 10% of earners pay 46%. The bottom 50% of earners in this country pay less than 13% of income tax collected by the federal government. Direct benefits from government apply to those who pay less, not more, so the top earners don’t get direct return on their investment.
Ah, but Tommy argues that the federal government protects the rich, and therefore it’s right that they pay more. But the only manner in which the government protects the rich is in how they protect all of us — by defending private-property rights, defending the borders, and establishing the rule of law. All of that is neutral to the income level of the individual citizens of the US.
So why have a progressive tax system, meaning one in which rates increase with the level earned? After all, a flat-rate system would still ensure that the rich pay more in terms of gross dollars while ensuring that everyone pay the same percentage of income earned. Progressives don’t like that, though, because they want to have government determine winners and losers rather than allowing the talents and the work of individuals in a free market determine that. And note that I’m not talking about government spending (and the various programs that support lower-income families), but only the manner in which the government collects its income.
The progressive tax system serves two purposes. First, it punishes those who succeed. Second, it minimizes the negative impact of redistribution so that more people don’t object to it. A flat-rate tax could raise just as much money, but the redistribution would become more obvious — and unpopular.
That’s why Joe the Plumber’s objection resonates. Barack Obama wants government to determine what is excessive wealth and confiscate it because government will “spread the wealth” better than the individuals who earned it. That, in fact, is elitist, and Tommy doesn’t understand that. A plumber can be an elitist if he thinks that people can’t make decisions for themselves and need a small, select group of people to make decisions for them. Elitism doesn’t refer to people who sun themselves on yachts in Aruba, but to a governing philosophy that assumes that people can’t run their own lives and require others to make those decisions.
The basic question from Joe the Plumber comes down to who should spend the money people earn. If the answer given is “government”, then that’s the elitist answer. If the answer given is “the earner”, then that is the libertarian, free-market answer that supports self-government and private-property ownership. In fact, it also supports common sense. Why filter wealth through a huge bureaucracy when Joe the Plumber can spread the wealth for no additional cost at all, choosing his own winners and losers instead of a few elites in Washington doing it for him?
Update: Added a paragraph for clarity.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Good post. I’m for a flat income tax rate, minimal or no deductions applicable to all who earn more than $25,000 per year.
Zorro on October 25, 2008 at 10:15 AM
When Mr. Christopher says “the government”, he means progressives like himself using the power of the state.
So, the argument from the left that government must serve “the people” or work on behalf of “the people” really means that the government – in the hands of progressives – will decide how best to work for “the people.”
It is elitism coming in the guise of populism.
Neat trick; they pulled if off this time.
SteveMG on October 25, 2008 at 10:17 AM
This poor sick country is evolving into the antitheses of everything I have believed in and valued. Our free market economy is quickly reverting to a socialist/communist model soon to be ruled by a Marxist regime in the White House and an amoral, socialist gaggle in the congress. The wandering sheep we call voters have absolutely no courage and are willing to sell their souls for a couple of upticks in their portfolios. Steal yourselves people . . . this is going to get very nasty.
rplat on October 25, 2008 at 10:18 AM
Well, not that I like losing the money that we’ve accumulated over the years,BUT we have now joined the ranks of those who pay no income tax. Do I call that “welcome to prosperity down the line for us” and, if a lot of others are in the same boat(I suspect they are)–who’s going to support all those we’ve been supporting for years? The answer: Obama is going to have to renege on his no taxes for those who earn below 250K and that’s a fact. Just another piece of his pie in the sky.
jeanie on October 25, 2008 at 10:20 AM
Ed,
you are missing the point. The elites do not want to pick winners and losers. They want to ensure their power base. They in effect what to make sure that there are no more winners to threaten their power. Liberals do not believe in competition. That is the whole reason that they hate capitalism. Capitalism requires competition. Socialists want the results to be the same for everyone (except themselves of course). They call this result “fair”. It is only fair to have the postal man and the steel worker making the same amount. why should one man make more than the other? They shout. Is the postal worker better than the steelworker? No they answer. They are the same and should be treated the same in everything including pay. To them the progressive tax system is about making everyone equal and making sure that no one gets too far ahead of others.
The liberals/socialists fail to understand the only way to make every one equal is to make everyone poor due to lack of resourses.
If we had unlimited resources socialism would work (thin Star trek) but we do not have unlimited resources thus socialism is doomed to failure. Because human nature refuses to except less when there is more to be had.
If there was no way to make more, mine more, drill more, than people would except doing without. But there is a way to have more and so the entire foundation of socialist thought is based on a fundemental flaw.
unseen on October 25, 2008 at 10:23 AM
Life, liberty, and property, in that order.
Anything else is just corruption.
Count to 10 on October 25, 2008 at 10:24 AM
An excellent definition that clarifies this often mis-used word. If I may add my own spin: I believe that most intelligent, thinking people are, to one degree or another, “elitist” to the extent that they believe some folks are just smarter, more clever, more industrious than others who, to be blunt, are just plain stupid. And Lord knows, there are plenty of stupid people around us these days.
The passive elitist is a conservative who believes in personal responsibility and enduring the consequences of one’s decisions and actions. The passive elitist believes that, when left to their own resources and ingenuity, most people will rise to the highest level their own competence will allow their ambition to take them. Passive elitists reject the concept of government existing to save people from themselves along with any attempt by the government to create equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity.
The active elitist is just the opposite. He or she is a liberal who believes that liberals alone possess wisdom and the unwashed masses are too stupid to properly govern their own lives and therefore must be carefully guided and controlled through a “nanny state” that endeavors to create a perfectly egalitarian society. The active elitist labors under the delusion that human nature is malleable and only the state alone can perfect it and, ultimately, all of society, until Utopia is achieved.
Sadly, this delusion has resulted in the tragic deaths of more human beings at the hands of the state in the 20th century than all of previous human history combined.
Lest anyone still harbor any doubts: Obama is an active elitist of the most virulent and lethal variety.
ManlyRash on October 25, 2008 at 10:25 AM
To tie a bow on this, I’m at a loss as to why taking money from person “A” and giving it to person “B” makes this a fairer and better country.
Arguing that taking more money from person “A” and providing more government services – better schools, job training, better roads – for person “B” is a tenable argument.
But simply transferring money from “A” to “B” – in effect moving your money from your left pocket to the right – doesn’t seem to me lead us to a “better” country.
If everyone in America had a income of, say, $100,000 each year, why would we be a better country than we are now? What is it about income being equitably distributed that in itself makes us that “shining city on the hill.”
SteveMG on October 25, 2008 at 10:26 AM
That’s Commonism!
forest on October 25, 2008 at 10:28 AM
Ed I don’t Pay fed taxes(in the course of the year I do,but get EIC at the end)but what’s kills me is FICA.How come no one ever mentions the GREAT RIPOFF.In Cal. I get about 28% total taxes taken out of my paycheck,and I’m at the bottom of the food chain,So I get a little ticked when You,Rush,Hannity and the rest say I don’t pay into the system,BAH!,
Bob
Bobnormal on October 25, 2008 at 10:30 AM
Even if we had unlimited resources, socialism still would not work. It is human nature to want to benefit from the fruit of one’s labor and to share that fruit first with one’s family and then with others. Socielaism is based on the bogus belief that human nature can be changed to effect a reversal of this arrangement, with an individual working for the good of the collective.
The only place I have ever seen this arrangement work is the monastic system. Even then, there is no attempt to change human nature or substitute the authority of the state for the authority of God.
ManlyRash on October 25, 2008 at 10:30 AM
Nothing. But it does make liberals feel warm and fuzzy inside – as long as they are the ones doing the redistributing.
ManlyRash on October 25, 2008 at 10:32 AM
High income earners are more likely to use private health cover and send their kids to private schools.
Exactly how to the wealthy benefit from tax?
The whole concept of income tax is to redistribute it from the rich to the poor, that is what income tax is. It is the whole reason for its being.
cyclosarin on October 25, 2008 at 10:32 AM
Income tax?
How about all the backdoor tax?
Drive a car that gets 17mpg. FEE.
Drive more then two miles to work. FEE.
Drive alone? FEE
R14 instead of R22 in the attic. FEE
Flush more then twice a week. FEE
No community service voucher. FINE
Smoke in your own home. FINE
Own a gun. SEARCH WARRANT.
Limerick on October 25, 2008 at 10:33 AM
Manly,
you nailed it.
scared.
Mommypundit on October 25, 2008 at 10:33 AM
We need look no further than the history of Elitism-Socialism-Liberalism the world has provided us with over the past century alone, let alone the past few centuries. This ideology has failed with every application bar none. This ideology removes a very important dynamic that is only available in an open, free, and fair market system; competition, competition, and more competition.
Keemo on October 25, 2008 at 10:33 AM
The progressive tax is a horrible idea, and it works on the principle of bribery. Effectively, if I reduce your tax burden (and shift it to person or business X) you’ll be more likely to vote for me. That’s why we see the EIC and other bigger movements (like Obama’s “tax cut”) have sprung up. Unfortunately, as we’ve seen the progressive tax is used by politicians as a political football, and if everyone is giving tax breaks to the “middle class”, then there’s a disproportional amount of people who are paying more and more of the tax burden.
As we’ve seen in the years since Clinton took office, more and more people pay less and less taxes, and every 4 years they’re promised more and more of a tax break. As this is additive, we get to the point where we are now, where 49% of the people in this country are going to pay nothing (under Obama, 43% under McCain). Now extrapolate to 2012, 2016, and those numbers will surpass 50%. At that point, half of the population has no monetary investment into government, and only half pay for government, which means there’s going to have to be newer incentives for government to give the people who pay less into government.
It’s a vicious cycle, and it needs to be curtailed.
Nethicus on October 25, 2008 at 10:34 AM
That would be a big tax increase for the lower-middle & middle class.
jgapinoy on October 25, 2008 at 10:35 AM
Define “unlimited resources.” Are we talking a state where there is no need for anyone to do any work at all, because anything is available on demand? I’m not sure I would want to live in such a meaningless world, but, even so, socialism would fail there because you couldn’t interest anyone in it, and capitalism would be unrecognizable because there would be no point to trade.
There is no reality that makes socialism “work” among individual wills.
Count to 10 on October 25, 2008 at 10:35 AM
If they want to be so obsessed with “FAIRNESS” then they need to learn what it actually means.
FAIRNESS is getting to keep what you earn. If you work harder, you get to earn more.
Simple.
Riposte on October 25, 2008 at 10:36 AM
You’re too tolerant. You’re letting those evil incandescent users get away with murder!
jgapinoy on October 25, 2008 at 10:36 AM
Good rebuttal, Ed.
Your point about ensuring their power base is valid, but Ed already touched on that with his reference to a progressive tax creating disenchantment from fewer people and a flat tax creating it in more, when increases occur. When robbing Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on the support of Paul.
a capella on October 25, 2008 at 10:36 AM
If the answer given is “government”, then that’s the elitist answer.
No sir, that’s socialism, pure and simple. If the answer was “we who know better than the rest of the nation because we went to some big university and have worked in government a long time or already been part of the machine” then that would be “elitism”.
Because, that is what it comes down to. There is an idea, even a fear, that the machine we call government would break down if it wasn’t continually fed or continuously feeding.
One of the answers I recently received from someone on the discussion of big government was that there is really no way to reduce its size because we would not know what to do if the government stopped doing certain things. Further, we are not giving government enough credence for doing things like eradicating diseases or building huge energy infrastructure like the TVA or the interstate highway system.
I tried to explain that, though the government can certainly draw enough centralized power and resources to do “big things”, it is no reason to suppose that the government does that efficiently or cost effectively, neither is it a reason to believe the government should do everything that it does today or would be effective in doing anything else.
Another friend pointed me to this story called “Not Yours to Take” regarding a conversation between Col. Davy Crocket and a private citizen Horatio Bunce.
I would suggest, with all honesty, that the major problem with the conservatives is that this message went terribly awry. and, worse, for the citizens, they have become so used to the government taking and doling out people’s money that they have a serious fear in trying to reduce it as if it was a game of Jenga and one missing piece would bring it all down.
This may also be caused by our aging population who seem, in polls, to want to vote for Obama. Why when they are more reliably republican conservative in the past? Part is that we are hitting the tipping point for the over 55 group who have been paying into social security for ages and are afraid that Medicare and Social Security are in danger of going away from them. Plus, many who already live on fixed incomes are looking for greater assistance from the government to defray costs for medicines or other services they feel they need.
In short, we have grown this society that we live in and a culture of “big government” for “the little people”.
Kat_Mo on October 25, 2008 at 10:37 AM
My Dad (a life long Democrat) told me (and my brothers) while growing up, “don’t lay there crying like a baby, waiting for someone to come and pick you back up, get up on your own and keep putting one foot in front of the other; don’t wait for others to get the job done for you, be your own man.”
This is what an old school Democrat voter was like; far cry from the Democrat voter of today!
Keemo on October 25, 2008 at 10:38 AM
Which would be fair, if unpopular.
What really needs to be done is to reduce the number of degrees of freedom in the tax laws (the number of tax brackets, deductions, and credits) so that congress doesn’t use it as a vote buying machine.
Count to 10 on October 25, 2008 at 10:38 AM
Er….unlimited resources. Wouldn’t that make the value of everything zero?
What would happen if South Africa and DeBeers dumped all those gold ounces and diamonds on the market at noon?
Limerick on October 25, 2008 at 10:39 AM
Thus far, the electorate consistently rejected attempts to expand the progressive tax code. The reflexive national reaction to the bailout bill was a resounding “Hell, no!”
This can be attributed to the common sense values of Americans, not to any cohesive message from the GOP, which failed to defend the Reagan era record through nearly 30 years of lies and failed to live up to the 1994 Contract with America, the last time free market conservatism was on the national ballot.
I repeat, Rush is right — as always — that conservatives have to reclaim the Republican Party for the sake of our country, our children and our grandchildren.
Terrie on October 25, 2008 at 10:39 AM
Well,the thing is,the Liberal Party has been holed
up way too long in their Socialist Ivory Towers,and
have lost all touch with ‘The Common Man’,btw,that
tune was played during Clintons Inaugeration!
For some inexplicable reason,this ‘Crisis’seems to
be orchestrated just in time for the end game of this
American election!
So,the Liberals were in a losing position in this
election,and decided to make it ‘The Economy Stupid’,
as in Carville’s campaign strategy with the Clintons
back when!
Ripping a page out of the Liberal handbook,Obama is
bound bent on ‘Class Warefare’!
Hopey/GaffeBiden’s campaign has been putin out the
message to ‘Silkys other America’,and Hopey has been
promising the get-even-with-the-other-half-ism,and
selling the utopian dream of making all fair game
with the tax angle!
One half of America see’s the light of truth,while
the half is in the dark,waiting for the ‘One’ to take
the perverbial magic wand and make their lives better!
If Obama gets his way,just remember,’Joe the Plumber’,
was thee financial canary in Obama’s tax mine!
canopfor on October 25, 2008 at 10:39 AM
The old chestnut warrants repeating:
“Democracy in America is doomed when the people learn to vote themselves money from the public trough…”
– Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America.
SteveMG on October 25, 2008 at 10:41 AM
My proble has always been with the lefts insistence that they define that ‘fair share’ and their tendency to define it so that someone else pays that share.
JIMV on October 25, 2008 at 10:43 AM
‘Economic justice’ – pah! Is that the sort of case that an Obama Supreme Court would be hearing??
Peri Winkle on October 25, 2008 at 10:45 AM
SteveMG on October 25, 2008 at 10:41 AM
Actually, de Tocqueville never penned those words. The full quote is below and has been attributed to Alexander Tytler, although it appears in none of his writings.
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years.
ManlyRash on October 25, 2008 at 10:46 AM
Because the capacity to pay taxes increases as the income earned increases.
20% for someone making 20,000$ a year is not the same as 20% for someone making 200,000$ a year. When you only make 20,000$, that 4,000$ makes a LOT of difference.
mycowardice on October 25, 2008 at 10:47 AM
Bobnormal on October 25, 2008 at 10:30 AM
FICA isn’t the Federal Income tax, it’s for your retirement (supposedly). Sales tax is for you local government, schools, etc. Talk to the socialists who are ruining California, but we’re talking about Federal Income Tax.
So….if you don’t pay any Federal Income tax, and you take one dime of EITC, YOU ARE ON FUCKING WELFARE!!!
TexasJew on October 25, 2008 at 10:48 AM
Gee, I guess $40,000 for your 200k fella is just a drop in the bucket.
Limerick on October 25, 2008 at 10:48 AM
Also, my cowardice, that might be a good thing. When the people start paying for the government they VOTE in government might just, just maybe, get a hell of a lot smaller.
Limerick on October 25, 2008 at 10:51 AM
Having raised five kids to adulthood, I still vividly remember the childish outbursts from time to time “It’s not fair!”
So, this begs the question, what is “fair?”
The liberals seem to have this idea that once one is in an income bracket one stays there in perpetuity. They also seem to believe that all the “rich” inherited it and spend their time clipping coupons and drinking out of gold goblets. As a result, they continue the myth that profit and large incomes are bad, that holders of wealth are keeping the poor downtrodden.
Nothing could be farther from the truth. Income and wealth in a capitalist society are transient. The ebb and flow of the economy at various times enables one to become “rich” and at other times be struggling. How one deals with both is what makes the system “fair.” Forcng all citizens to accept a lower level of income and income potential is inherently unfair. The root of this is called incentive. Don’t like what you are earning? Find a better or new income source. Educate yourself, learn a new skill or trade. Have an idea or an ability that will make you rich? Market it. Sell it. License it. Franchise it. Keeping earners in motion as well as money in motion keeps the economy vibrant and strong. Stifle any of this and the economy becomes artificial and weak. Put government in charge of how much we earn or can earn and how much can be taken away and the market becomes untenable.
People with money keep money moving through the market. They buy products, they enable job growth, they provide wages and incomes, and these in turn cause others to buy products, keep the money moving, enabling jobs and wages and incomes. It is a cycle. The notion of rich people sitting on piles of cash, like Scrooge McDuck, is plainly stupid. Wealth does nothing unless it is in motion. The sort of market and government economic ideas fostered by Obama would tend to stop the flow of wealth, thus lessen its worth. And to what end? make all of us uniformly poor? Is that fair? To anyone?
Barrack, baby, the easiest way to “spread the wealth around” is to let the markets function freely. Let incentive rule. Let the chips fall where they may. The guy who is struggling today may be the wealthy entrepreneur tomorrow…allow that to happen.
When I hear liberals holler about “it’s unfair!” I find it shows more about their lack of education on economics than their actual desire to correct an unfairness. Given the opportunity, would any of these liberals give up their incomes, slash their personal wealth, so that everyone on their street would bring home the exact same amount of cash each payday? I doubt it.
Our system is based on the opportunity to fail…and the opportunity to stand up and try again and again, with no class distinctions preventing income movement and no castes to preclude movement through the economic system.
That so many have been inculcated to accept that they are “poor” because someone else has all the money is fallacy, one that is spread in our schools and in our political fora.
What is indeed unfair is to take from those who have earned it to give to those who do not earn it. [Take a look at Obama and Biden's charitable contributions over the years. Slim. Appallingly slim. As do most liberals, they believe that giving is a function of government, not of the individual.]
I give ten-percent of all I earn away each year. Sometimes more, rarely less. Can I afford to do this? Probably not. But, as an individual, I decide what I want to do with the money I earn.
This is fairness. Let the individual decide. Let the individual decide what they are going to earn, how they are going to earn it and how they are going to distribute it.
As for a tax system…a flat tax across the board…for all…no deductions. That is fairness.
Anything else leads toward Marxism in the marketplace. And Marxism, as proven over the past 100 years, is totally unfair across the board.
Sorry for the lengthy rant…got Neil Cavuto on Fox in the other room right now…
coldwarrior on October 25, 2008 at 10:51 AM
The problem with conservatism is that it requires a cerebral process and a strong sentiment for individual liberty.
Liberals rarely, if ever, have both qualities at the same time.
Saltysam on October 25, 2008 at 10:51 AM
Not a good comparison. While it is true that the diamond cartell holds more diamonds in reserve than are in circulation, making the true value of most consumer diamonds very little, gold is not stockpiled by gold companies and the demand is 50% greater than the supply over the last decade, making gold undervalued.
JIMV on October 25, 2008 at 10:54 AM
Awesome.
Count to 10 on October 25, 2008 at 10:54 AM
Well, in reality, there are two problems: government taxes and government spending. None of them are good and you can’t change one without the other.
And, I’d agree to that but also agree that no one is talking about a straight 20% tax. Further, I would suggest that the third, hidden problem is already mentioned: when only 50% or less of the population pays taxes, then who “owns” government?
Everybody talks about the evils of lobbyist money and the ability to influence government by large organizations and corporations, but they are the ones that pay the most along with their top wealthy stock owners. When we have relegated most of the tax payments to these entities and government continues to try to regulate them more and more, then you can understand why they might feel the need to have such influence on the government.
That is not good anyway you look at it because we might “vote” for our representatives, but they are owned by a few. the competing interests of our “regular citizens” needs and those of large corporations or extremely wealthy may not necessarily coincide except where we are all interested in keeping as much of our own money as possible.
Kat_Mo on October 25, 2008 at 10:55 AM
The entire concept of letting the government take from one and give to another is ludicrous. First of all, don’t all these people wanting handouts realize that begging on the street (thereby by passing the middle man) would be more effective? Don’t they notice that when the government takes with one hand, another hand comes in an quickly grabs the cream before what’s left is redistributed?
Of course the other fallacy is that income redistribution can’t work for long because the 60% of Americans actually paying taxes (which will drop under Obama) decide the burden is too heavy and drop out and become another one of those with their hands out.
And yes, redistribution is indeed buying votes with other peoples’ money
katablog.com on October 25, 2008 at 10:55 AM
OkeyDokey. I stand corrected on gold. Since I don’t have any (except the Clannad on my finger) I plead ignorance.
Limerick on October 25, 2008 at 10:56 AM
Thanks for that correction. I thought it wasn’t Tocqueville but couldn’t remember who orginally said it.
So, I googled it and Tocqueville (incorrectly) came up.
SteveMG on October 25, 2008 at 10:56 AM
Even if we had unlimited resources, socialism still would not work. It is human nature to want to benefit from the fruit of one’s labor and to share that fruit first with one’s family and then with others
ManlyRash on October 25, 2008 at 10:30 AM
Unlimted resources destroys the theory of supply and demand. This is why the video and music industries are failing. With mp3 and downloads. A copy of a song can now be bad for basically zero. That song can be transferred over the world again for basically nothing (yes I know the cost of the transport system is not being included but iut has “already been paid for” etc) thus since a song can in effectr become an unlimited resource the price of that resource goes to zero. It is only with threats of force do the music industry try to keep a price for their product.
Thus with unlimted resources prices for things would become zero. It is at this point and only at this point would socialism work. The socialists think they can get to this point (price zero) by price controls, income redistrubution, forced rationing of resources (supply limits) and forced conservation (demand limtes (see PA’s new law on electricity fees))
It can not be done because the system does not have unlimted resources thus the controls can not stop human nature of wanting a better life.
unseen on October 25, 2008 at 10:56 AM
Yeah, just might get by without a second job.
Saltysam on October 25, 2008 at 10:56 AM
Bobnormal on October 25, 2008 at 10:30 AM
Yes, but so does everyone else, along with income tax. You know that the folks you mentioned aren’t talking about you, it just takes to much time to state that fact every time they are talking about. If tomorrow you came up with a scathingly brilliant idea that everyone wanted and needed you to would be worried about how much you and your family was going to benefit from your hard work.
Cindy Munford on October 25, 2008 at 10:57 AM
This is more proof as to how liberals live in a bubble; No matter what you have, there is always someone behind you with less, and that someone wants some of what you have. For the fools in favor of this tax plan to think it’s only going to affect, “rich people” they are delusional.
I snicker at my sister in CA who supports Obama with that lame “No more Bush” mantra, yet complains bitterly about all the illegals and the welfare recipients that are sucking CA dry. These middle class Obama supporters are in for a rude awakening.
anniekc on October 25, 2008 at 10:58 AM
Define “unlimited resources.” Are we talking a state where there is no need for anyone to do any work at all, because anything is available on demand? I’m not sure I would want to live in such a meaningless world, but, even so, socialism would fail there because you couldn’t interest anyone in it, and capitalism would be unrecognizable because there would be no point to trade.
There is no reality that makes socialism “work” among individual wills.
Count to 10 on October 25, 2008 at 10:35 AM
unlimited resources= a point where the product is so availiable that the price is zero. The air we breath is one unlimted resource. Water in some places is in other places it isn’t. Mp3’s videos etc is unlimted. Sunlight etc.
unseen on October 25, 2008 at 11:01 AM
Now that I give it some thought, you have a point. The key is “unlimited” resources, which sidesteps the tragedy of the commons. In this case, the commons would be of limitless extent and productivity. Thank you for clarifying your argument.
ManlyRash on October 25, 2008 at 11:01 AM
Topic drift….redistribution…The first part of Obama’s reply to Joe has not gotten much analysis (that I’ve seen).
The measure of success in today’s America is getting a check?? Man-o-live, I’m going to be sick!
Peri Winkle on October 25, 2008 at 11:07 AM
Er….unlimited resources. Wouldn’t that make the value of everything zero?
What would happen if South Africa and DeBeers dumped all those gold ounces and diamonds on the market at noon?
Limerick on October 25, 2008 at 10:39 AM
Yes. Price is zero is the only way socialism can work. I mentioned Star Trek for a reason. Star trek is based on a socialist concept. There is no profit motive in Star trek. Anything you want can be made from a “replicator”. Therefore everyone is “equal” has far as income goes. They travel the stars “to go where no man has gone before for the intellectual pursuit of it.” To better themselves and human society not to “make money” It is a total socialist show. In fact in Star trek next generation the cpaitalists were protrayed as evil Frrengi.”
At least Bradbury understood the only way for his socialist society to work was to with unlimted resources.
At least he was being honest.
unseen on October 25, 2008 at 11:08 AM
Get Nancy Reagan on the phone. Ask if we can have access to old RR video. Use the following in a campaign ad, NOW!
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on October 25, 2008 at 11:11 AM
Mr Ed. I don’t see how you can say the article your referenced was an interesting defense of the progressive tax system.
It was filled with jealousy and envy, and was an obvious attempt to redefine the meaning of the word ‘elitist’.
The entire idea behind the progressive tax system is the thought that rich people have more than enough. That rich people have more than they need, and therefore can afford to pay more in income taxes. Even though they pay a higher percentage, they still have more left over, after tax.
The whole idea behind capitalism is you are entitled to what you create. You can keep it, trade it, give it away, but what you create you own. That drives the leftists crazy because in their universe, everything should be shared.
rockhauler on October 25, 2008 at 11:12 AM
It still doesn’t work. In the price-zero scenario, you have the leisure/hunter gatherer set up, not a dominating socialist structure.
There is a problem, though, if the unlimited resources come from a limited, controllable source: then someone or some government can acquire a monopoly on that source. In California, water is like this, and the government has taken control, causing problems as “free” water is shipped off to supplement the lifestyles of those who choose to live far from water. In a number of autocratic countries, the resource is oil.
Count to 10 on October 25, 2008 at 11:14 AM
Don’t forget forced labor. This is the big unspoken cover-up with socialists.
The rights inherent in the Constitution give Americans the right to be lazy. It’s just that life will kick your ass.
In a socialist government, they start out with the wealth transfer regime. Once the power structure has solidified, and the government is in full control, they inevitably discover that they have a little problem on their hands. And the elite have a choice at this point. Either scrap socialism (yeah right), or progress to the next step in the socialist process: Noone has the right to be lazy anymore, or the government will kick your ass.
Saltysam on October 25, 2008 at 11:14 AM
Whereas the Obama administration will be introducing national “community organizing” course requirements in junior high schools and high schools, we really ought to be requiring about two years’ worth of personal financial planning courses in high school: basic economics, personal finance, financial markets, taxation, and retirement planning. Why? Trying to have a serious discussion with so many nitwits who don’t know anything is useless.
I could go for a flat tax with a floor under which no tax is due. Even with our current progressive system there’s still a perception that some are getting away with something.
I object most to Obama’s plan because it continues the increases the number of people removed from the federal income tax rolls. I don’t care that they’re paying into FICA; they should also pay at least something towards federal income tax.
I will say that, on the other side, employers really should evaluate their compensation schemes concerning the disparity between compensation levels of executives and lower level employees. You can make all the arguments that you want that exorbitant levels are needed to attract talent, but I don’t see a lot of talent at some of these public companies. But that’s for the shareholders and boards of companies to decide–not the government. The point is that true fat cats can’t complain about confiscation when there are so many instances of incompetence and shoving wealth in the common man’s face. Beyond that, and I don’t argue that it should be legislated, those with substantially more would go a long way toward eliminating class warfare if they were much more generous within their own community. That kind of thing would eliminate much of the fuel that idiots like Obama use to insist on making decisions to confiscate wealth and distribute as they see fit. It might also eliminate the useless bureaucracy required to redistribute wealth–and which, of course, employers nothing but Obama supporters.
BuckeyeSam on October 25, 2008 at 11:15 AM
Topic drift….redistribution…The first part of Obama’s reply to Joe has not gotten much analysis (that I’ve seen).
I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance for success too,”
The measure of success in today’s America is getting a check?? Man-o-live, I’m going to be sick!
Peri Winkle on October 25, 2008 at 11:07 AM
Good catch. I thought the same thing when I heard that. However it is worse than that. From his statement, Obama believes that the poor have no chance for success. That the deck is stacked against them. That capitalism is an inherent system that keeps the poor downtrodden. To Obama it is capitalism that makes people poor not the poeple themselves that make made decsions. It is in essence the same as when blacks say “the man” is keeping them down. The man has been known in previous generations as the white master, the white landonwer, the white government. Obama takes it one step further and say the “man” is capitalism. A very terrorirfinh look into the basic fundementals of Obama’s views.
In fact everyone behind Joe has a chance no matter how much Joe makes. If they work hard, are smart, and have some luck. I think gov can help with the luck part. For the others gov should stay out of it.
unseen on October 25, 2008 at 11:16 AM
In a socialist government, they start out with the wealth transfer regime. Once the power structure has solidified, and the government is in full control, they inevitably discover that they have a little problem on their hands. And the elite have a choice at this point. Either scrap socialism (yeah right), or progress to the next step in the socialist process: Noone has the right to be lazy anymore, or the government will kick your ass.
Saltysam on October 25, 2008 at 11:14 AM
Good point and this is already being said by Obama with his “help thy brother” talk. His giving back to society talk, and his national service ideas.
unseen on October 25, 2008 at 11:18 AM
That’ll pretty much be the end of it. 50% paying little to nothing and continuing to vote for people who will steal on their behalf means the end of democracy and capitalism. Sounds kinds of extreme, but I don’t see a way around it – the end.
forest on October 25, 2008 at 11:18 AM
Count to 10 on October 25, 2008 at 11:14 AM
But if you control an unlimited resource then you just made in limited thus destroying socialism.
As far as the hunter/leisure. there are other things to accomplish if you do not need to worry about things. Again Star trek has many, many examples of how a socialist society would be set up if the need to get the needed basics of life is no longer a problem.
unseen on October 25, 2008 at 11:22 AM
Roddenberry. The creator of Star Trek is Gene Roddenberry. He was also an avowed atheist.
ManlyRash on October 25, 2008 at 11:23 AM
That’ll pretty much be the end of it. 50% paying little to nothing and continuing to vote for people who will steal on their behalf means the end of democracy and capitalism. Sounds kinds of extreme, but I don’t see a way around it – the end.
forest on October 25, 2008 at 11:18 AM
when you add into the fact the we now live in a global society those that pay now have the very real oppurtunity to flee the high taxes for another country. The lax immigration laws, the lax regulations of world markets makes it very easy.
unseen on October 25, 2008 at 11:25 AM
The CIO overcompensation complaint mostly boils down to a belief that the CEO’s sit on each other’s boards and scratch each other’s backs at the expense of the share holders. This would be easily fixed by forbidding executives from sitting on each other’s boards, which would probably be minimally infringing (particularly compared to legislating caps on executive pay).
Count to 10 on October 25, 2008 at 11:26 AM
I could afford to bling myself into tackiness just like the rap stars to, that’s what.
Bob's Kid on October 25, 2008 at 11:27 AM
So now all I’ll have to do is pack up and move my family to some other country that’s not as far gone yet and we can go on for another generation or two. Great.
forest on October 25, 2008 at 11:27 AM
Thank you for taking the cue, because that’s where I was headed. I also heard a rumor that in the last few days he was sticking a work requirement into his redistribution plan in hopes that it will sell better to the “work for welfare” types)
Also, Unseen, I do have to disagree with your concept of unlimited resources being the only way socialism can work. This overlooks the need for actual labor and services. I mean, in order for socialism to work we would need to be like, (and this will date me), Elizabeth Montgomery’s character on Bewitched. If only we could wrinkle our noses and then “POOF!”, plates of hot and ready food on our dinner table.
Socialism can never work, even with unlimited resources. Socialism is a pipe dream.
Saltysam on October 25, 2008 at 11:28 AM
Roddenberry. The creator of Star Trek is Gene Roddenberry. He was also an avowed atheist.
ManlyRash on October 25, 2008 at 11:23 AM
Yes your right. Have Ray Bradbury on my mind today for some reason. Been thinking of FAHRENHEIT 451 and how it reminds me of the campaign.
unseen on October 25, 2008 at 11:28 AM
Er, the rap stars do, not to.
Ahem.
Bob's Kid on October 25, 2008 at 11:28 AM
Ed:
I would direct your attention to the Tax Foundation page.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/250.html
Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data
The bottom 50% of taxpayers only contribute 3.01% of federal income taxes.
rockdalian on October 25, 2008 at 11:28 AM
Also the answer of our Founders.
PattyJ on October 25, 2008 at 11:28 AM
So now all I’ll have to do is pack up and move my family to some other country that’s not as far gone yet and we can go on for another generation or two. Great.
forest on October 25, 2008 at 11:27 AM
Now you know what your ancestors where thinking when they came here.
unseen on October 25, 2008 at 11:29 AM
Or you can stay and fight.
ManlyRash on October 25, 2008 at 11:29 AM
In the past we had a Christian consensus in America who bristled at the thought of getting something for nothing. Now in post christendom America the unpaying majority says “gimme more.” Congrats to the dhimmicrats who have put us on this road to totalitarianism. Only a robust conservative movement can derail this train.
Mojave Mark on October 25, 2008 at 11:31 AM
Why don’t you draft me a budget for 20k, and then take away 4k from it, and draft a budget for 200k, and then take away 40k from it.
Plus, in reality, the debate is not about 4k vs 40k. The real scenario is this: you all want a flat tax. Let’s say the flat tax is at 20%. So the person making 20k gets 16k, the one making 200k gets 160k.
Now we need more money. Let’s say we need an extra 4k to fund the war in Iraq. Where would you get the 4k from? would you get 2k from the person making 20k and 2k from the one making 200k? Would you increase the tax rate to 22%, thereby forcing the person that was working on a 16k budget to now work on a 15.6k budget? Where was that 400$ going to? Was that person using that 400$ frivolously? Who has more slack?
mycowardice on October 25, 2008 at 11:31 AM
It’s a completely emotional argument for liberals, Ed. They cannot defend progressive taxation on any economic or practical grounds. It simply makes them feel better to make “rich people” pay a higher rate. This is why you can never win an argument with them. It’s all about their concept of fairness.
There is a real “progressive” economic theory behind the Obama plan, though. It has just been packaged slickly so the voters don’t really understand it. The theory is that the biggest engine of economic growth is consumer spending, and the middle and lower classes spend almost all of what they earn. Therefore, if the government “spreads the wealth around” so as to raise incomes in the middle and lower brackets, this money will all be spent and this will produce economic growth. This theory does not address “growing the pie,” but believes that distributing the pie more equitably will lead to less “hoarding” of the pie by the wealthy. It also assumes that the changes in incentives for the top brackets will not make the pie shrink.
Classical liberal economic theory holds that economic growth and job creation comes from innovation, risk taking by businesses, and higher productivity which is achieved through technological advances and increasing the education level of the workforce. It also holds that saving by individuals is more important than spending, as the savings are pooled through banks and then lent to businesses to grow and invest in more equipment and higher productivity.
We are about to get our first real test of progressive economic theory.
rockmom on October 25, 2008 at 11:31 AM
Nice piece, Ed. Here’s something I published when “Joe” broke into the news cycle:
Joe Plumber’s Economics
Hey, I think it makes the point.
manwithblackhat on October 25, 2008 at 11:31 AM
It bears repeating. And Bobnormal, consider moving to Nevada or Colorado as many Californians seem to be doing.
I snicker at my sister in CA who supports Obama with that lame “No more Bush” mantra, yet complains bitterly about all the illegals and the welfare recipients that are sucking CA dry. These middle class Obama supporters are in for a rude awakening.anniekc on October 25, 2008 at 10:58 AM
My dad grew up in Sacramento and started out married life there. His public company employer moved us to the Midwest more than 40 years ago, so we go back only for an occasional visit to Lake Tahoe. He has a retired Presbyterian minister brother who can do nothing but complain about what little the government does for him and his wife. It’s unbelievable to think that my dad and his brother came from the same arch-conservative German parents. Seriously, those people would make Goldwater look like Obama!
BuckeyeSam on October 25, 2008 at 11:32 AM
Saltysam on October 25, 2008 at 11:28 AM
Again It is why I used the Star Trek model. In star trek you had “replicators” Much like Bewitch where what ever you wanted can simply be made from the air around you.
Yes it is a pipedream and can not work under our present technology and most likely can never work. Unless we invent something that can change into what we imagine.
That doesn’t stop people from trying to make it work. Usally with millions of deaths as a result
unseen on October 25, 2008 at 11:32 AM
That’s exactly what I intend to do, but it’s not looking good right now.
forest on October 25, 2008 at 11:33 AM
I don’t remember any examples–more like “wouldn’t it be neat if…”
It also didn’t have unlimited resources (unless you count Q). Bizarrely, the setting for ST:NG had all the trappings of a capitalist society, but the characters talk as if it is not. “We have no system of money” vs. “My family owns a winery” (kind of like “…back when people feared death” from the life-saving doctor). There are freighters, merchants, markets, and even bars, but no one has any way of paying for any of it?
Count to 10 on October 25, 2008 at 11:34 AM
Great quote, Dr. Cwac. Unfortunately I don’t think either candidate really believes in it.
PattyJ on October 25, 2008 at 11:36 AM
“Barack Obama will not allow you to stay in your comfort zone…”
Michelle MyBell Obama
They know exactly what they’re doing.
techno_barbarian on October 25, 2008 at 11:36 AM
This is the only rational choice left.
I like the idea of secession of Alaska. Then Canada revolts and joins with Alaska in a limited, constitutional government. Then, recognize Texas, and place their shiny new embassy right next to ANWR.
After the old US turns into a miserable failure and the two new fledgling democracies are a stunning success, we purchase the lower 48 from Washington for a tanker full of rice, beans, and other assorted humanitarian goods.
Saltysam on October 25, 2008 at 11:41 AM
It’s history. It’s sad that it has taken 2 generations to get back to where we were in the 1960s. Reagan’s words (44 years ago) still ring true.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on October 25, 2008 at 11:41 AM
I agree. Enron notwithstanding, there isn’t enough shareholder activism in selecting board members and holding them accountable for their selection of executive officers. I’d have thought that with the rise of so many institutional investors–mutual funds, pension funds, and endowments funds–that they’d monitor this kind of thing more carefully. To be sure, when you compare executive compensation to a particular company’s budget or market capitalization, it’s peanuts. But yanking compensation figures out in isolation and viewing them really gets you wondering.
I suppose my complaint is that there’s never a downside for the disgraced executives. For example, the Merrill Lynch exec who parachuted out with $100 million or so. Sure, he’ll get clipped for income tax, so it’s pruned down to, say, $65 million. Do you think he can eke out the rest of his life on that? Maybe the shareholder derivative suits are coming, but, again, too many walk away with so much that who cares about the dark cloud? A few years pass and they’re writing a book or welcomed out on the public-speaking circuit.
BuckeyeSam on October 25, 2008 at 11:44 AM
Count to 10 on October 25, 2008 at 11:34 AM
The Frengi was what finally made me see the implict socialism of Star Trek.
unseen on October 25, 2008 at 11:45 AM
mycowardice on October 25, 2008 at 11:31 AM
Scrap the 16th amendment altogether.
This is where the socialists got there foothold into the American psyche.
To hell with all your math.
Saltysam on October 25, 2008 at 11:47 AM
You have two conceptual problems:
One, you think in terms of need. There are no needs, only wants. The average under-the-poverty-line-family in the US has a home, at least one car, and a TV. I personally built up savings of thousands of dollars while earning less than $20k a year.
Two, you think in terms of static income, as if incentive is irrelevant. As it turns out, the higher your income, the more responsive your efforts are to tax rates. You might even find that this inverts at the bottom of the income scale; some people will have more incentive to work, and be more productive, if you start taxing them.
Count to 10 on October 25, 2008 at 11:48 AM
God must like re-runs. With every generation’s passing, it seems their formative experiences disappear with them. It falls to some later generation to re-learn them. Life may not be as varied as we think.
JiangxiDad on October 25, 2008 at 11:48 AM
…their foothold…
:-o
Saltysam on October 25, 2008 at 11:49 AM
…and they become the worst socialists at the end.
The Frengi always annoyed me. They are a demonization (almost litterally) of capitalists, and just serve to show how disjoint the Star Trek universe is.
Count to 10 on October 25, 2008 at 11:53 AM
Then Canada revolts and joins with Alaska…
Saltysam on Oct 25,2008 at 11:41AM.
Saltysam: Oh, I do love this idea,I’ll get upinak on
the border with me,and will scrutinize zee
paperwork,and turn away all,Libs!
Just like the pioneering days,10 acres,
1 horse,1 moose,and all the Canadian
beaver you can trap!!haha:)
canopfor on October 25, 2008 at 11:53 AM
Actually, we had our first real test of progressive economic theory 400 years ago shortly after the Pilgrims settled Massachusetts. For a year or so they implemented socialism – actually it was more like communism – with disastrous consequences. Free enterprise followed in its wake.
It is the doom of men that we forget.
ManlyRash on October 25, 2008 at 11:59 AM
mycowardice on October 25, 2008 at 11:31 AM
You are arguing a false premise. Anyone who has proposed a flat tax or fair tax has already set a base limit on where it begins. Some say, $40k or $50K/yr. No one who makes less than that would be subject to the tax. Therefore your argument goes away.
JAM on October 25, 2008 at 12:01 PM
canopfor on October 25, 2008 at 11:53 AM
It certainly is revealing when you think about it. The socialists will scream and carry on about such extremism, yet:
This is a scenario, though far fetched, that is actually more realistic than socialism “working”.
Saltysam on October 25, 2008 at 12:01 PM
Yet another enlightening fact I learned from John Stossel.
Count to 10 on October 25, 2008 at 12:03 PM
Hmm, not if it’s a consumption tax. I.e., the Linder/Boortz “fair tax” plan.
That has “prebates” that will return/offset any taxes paid on essential items (food, et cetera).
SteveMG on October 25, 2008 at 12:07 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »