The Question Conservatives Can't Answer

[Jitto]

it has got to do with the income...

 

[Skull Pilot]

US GDP and productivity have increased vastly since 1980; however, the economic rewards from those increases have gone overwhelmingly to 1% of the population. It is not the 1% losing their jobs, homes and retirements or sending their children to Afghanistan.

In 1980 the richest 1% of Americans earned about 8% of the total number of dollars earned by all US workers in that year. In 2008 they earned 20%, and it's probably increased in the three years since that time.

The fact there are more rich people today and much more money in the economy doesn't mean that government tax policies haven't played a major role in creating all those newly minted millionaires and billionaires.

I suppose it's better to have taxes at the most confiscatory tax level possible so no one can become a millionaire.

Just imagine if we could rid the world of the scourge of evil millionaires via tax policy alone.

A libby wet dream is what that is.

While cons drool at the prospect of a nanny state without any taxes?

Some of our richest countrymen and women have "earned" vast fortunes built on taxpayer funded research at the DARPA (the Internet), the NIA (pharmaceuticals), and the National Science Foundation (the Digital Library Initiative).

Do you think the current tax levels these millionaires and billionaires pay is "confiscatory."

Taxpayers should not be funding research or any other private endeavor.

And you can't accuse me of promoting a nanny state. I want the fucking government out of people's lives altogether.

And yes I think the taxes I pay are confiscatory.

And many these evil rich people will see their half their fortunes stolen via the death tax so it really makes no difference what they pay in taxes while they're alive.

 

[georgephillip]

I guess I'd be happy if you showed me the programs which gave "complete protection of bank and corporate bondholders at taxpayer expense".

Maybe you have a list, because I can't think of any?

While I work on that list, would you agree with this assessment?

"Fund manager (and PhD) John Hussman explains the end game of this current policy:

"[T]he U.S. currently has a private debt to GDP ratio of about 3.5, which is nearly double the historical norm, at a time when the underlying collateral is being marked down easily by 20-30%.

All collateral is being marked down that much? I haven't seen that figure before. Does he provide any backup? As far as the 350% number, how much of that is double counted?

"That implies total collateral losses of 70-100% of GDP; a figure that includes not only mortgage debt in the banking system, but consumer credit, corporate debt and so on.

What corporate debt is being marked down by 20%?

Bailouts Of Bondholders Will Sock Taxpayers With $10-$14 Trillion Loss

Bond holders lose money all the time.
Still waiting for some evidence that taxpayers are on the hook.
Except for Fannie and Freddie, I can't think of any way taxpayers are on the hook to bondholders.

"Economist Joseph Stiglitz calls out the titans of finance, who continue to make mega bonuses for their companies' mega losses, even after they set the global economy in a tailspin and shifted all risks for their unregulated credit default swaps onto taxpayers.

"He describes a nation of, by and for the 1 percent that enjoys 25 percent of economic benefits, largely purchased by Washington lobbyists."

America Held Hostage to Two-Party Failure: Government of, by and for the Corporations | Truthout

Twenty-four million Americans lack work and nearly $9 trillion in household wealth has vanished since the "titans of finance" brought the US economy to its knees in 2008.

Bondholders of poorly run financial companies should lose all the time.
It seems today's bondholders prefer running to the nanny state for bailouts.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

While I work on that list, would you agree with this assessment?

"Fund manager (and PhD) John Hussman explains the end game of this current policy:

"[T]he U.S. currently has a private debt to GDP ratio of about 3.5, which is nearly double the historical norm, at a time when the underlying collateral is being marked down easily by 20-30%.

All collateral is being marked down that much? I haven't seen that figure before. Does he provide any backup? As far as the 350% number, how much of that is double counted?What corporate debt is being marked down by 20%?

Bailouts Of Bondholders Will Sock Taxpayers With $10-$14 Trillion Loss

Bond holders lose money all the time.
Still waiting for some evidence that taxpayers are on the hook.
Except for Fannie and Freddie, I can't think of any way taxpayers are on the hook to bondholders.

"Economist Joseph Stiglitz calls out the titans of finance, who continue to make mega bonuses for their companies' mega losses, even after they set the global economy in a tailspin and shifted all risks for their unregulated credit default swaps onto taxpayers.

"He describes a nation of, by and for the 1 percent that enjoys 25 percent of economic benefits, largely purchased by Washington lobbyists."

America Held Hostage to Two-Party Failure: Government of, by and for the Corporations | Truthout

Twenty-four million Americans lack work and nearly $9 trillion in household wealth has vanished since the "titans of finance" brought the US economy to its knees in 2008.

Bondholders of poorly run financial companies should lose all the time.
It seems today's bondholders prefer running to the nanny state for bailouts.

Where is Stiglitz's proof that anyone shifted all risks for their unregulated credit default swaps onto taxpayers? I didn't see any in your link. Did you?

Which bonds are being bailed out by the government?

 

[georgephillip]

Do you have any reason to think Stiglitz is confused about this issue or lying about it?

What would you consider credible "proof"?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Do you have any reason to think Stiglitz is confused about this issue or lying about it?

What would you consider credible "proof"?

Unless he shows proof for his claims yes, he's confused or lying.

Proof would be something showing how taxpayers are on the hook for unregulated credit default swaps.

 

[georgephillip]

Hmmm. It seems that you guys don't want to discuss anything that doesn't demonize or blame "the other side" completely. The points below don't point the finger at the rich but on the other side, they do legitimately criticize certain policies which are currently backed by the GOP. But nah. Keep on talking about why none of those points are relevant and it's the "the danm Socialist Dems fault" or that people who don't take the risk to start their own business, are "victimized". Okay, if that's your cup of tea. But neither ConservaRepubs nor LibDems seem to be posting much that is based on more than emotion or the talking points fed by the pundits. Just an observation...

I'm not a "Con" (although I've been called it a few times) but I'll offer a few ideas.
1. Technology. It has had the same effect on wealth creation as on many other things: acceleration. While technology has contributed to the decline of income from all those people who used to work at say, printing shops or travel agencies, it has increased the amount and rate at which the rich can leverage their specialized knowledge (i.e. how to get rich or richer) into even more wealth.
2. Globalization. We can monitor the NIKKEI in real time, send and receive contracts, orders etc... across the globe in seconds. So people who have the ability to get rich, have certain skills. Now they can leverage them even more efficiently and in more places.
3. In one respect you're right - but not when it comes to personal tax breaks. Where you're right is Corps. Corporations have been given BILLIONS is special tax breaks, subsidies etc... since the 80's, that they never used to get. It used to be, these tax breaks and subsidies were reserved only for businesses that were helping the public good (like phone companies putting phone lines in rural areas that wouldn't be profitible to them, because of the low number of customers) but now? Big Oil? Other Multi-National companies? They are not providing some new technology or service that Americans wouldn't otherwise have. They aren't building bridges or infrastructure. They haven't been for decades. But they still get our money. This defnitely helps the rich get richer and faster.

So I'm not demonizing the rich. I don't fault them their success and I feel blessed to have mine. I'm just making an Independent's observations.

In addition to technology and globalization and corporate tax breaks, there's been a concerted effort by both major political parties to shift the burden of taxation off individual FIRE sector incomes and onto wages and salaries.

"Thanks largely to the $13 trillion Wall Street bailout – while keeping the debt overhead in place for America’s 'bottom 98 per cent' – this happy 2 per cent of the population now receives an estimated three quarters (~75 per cent) of the returns to wealth (interest, dividends, rent and capital gains). This is nearly double what it received a generation ago. The rest of the population is being squeezed, and foreclosures are rising."

Michael Hudson: Obama's Greatest Betrayal

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Hmmm. It seems that you guys don't want to discuss anything that doesn't demonize or blame "the other side" completely. The points below don't point the finger at the rich but on the other side, they do legitimately criticize certain policies which are currently backed by the GOP. But nah. Keep on talking about why none of those points are relevant and it's the "the danm Socialist Dems fault" or that people who don't take the risk to start their own business, are "victimized". Okay, if that's your cup of tea. But neither ConservaRepubs nor LibDems seem to be posting much that is based on more than emotion or the talking points fed by the pundits. Just an observation...

I'm not a "Con" (although I've been called it a few times) but I'll offer a few ideas.
1. Technology. It has had the same effect on wealth creation as on many other things: acceleration. While technology has contributed to the decline of income from all those people who used to work at say, printing shops or travel agencies, it has increased the amount and rate at which the rich can leverage their specialized knowledge (i.e. how to get rich or richer) into even more wealth.
2. Globalization. We can monitor the NIKKEI in real time, send and receive contracts, orders etc... across the globe in seconds. So people who have the ability to get rich, have certain skills. Now they can leverage them even more efficiently and in more places.
3. In one respect you're right - but not when it comes to personal tax breaks. Where you're right is Corps. Corporations have been given BILLIONS is special tax breaks, subsidies etc... since the 80's, that they never used to get. It used to be, these tax breaks and subsidies were reserved only for businesses that were helping the public good (like phone companies putting phone lines in rural areas that wouldn't be profitible to them, because of the low number of customers) but now? Big Oil? Other Multi-National companies? They are not providing some new technology or service that Americans wouldn't otherwise have. They aren't building bridges or infrastructure. They haven't been for decades. But they still get our money. This defnitely helps the rich get richer and faster.

So I'm not demonizing the rich. I don't fault them their success and I feel blessed to have mine. I'm just making an Independent's observations.

In addition to technology and globalization and corporate tax breaks, there's been a concerted effort by both major political parties to shift the burden of taxation off individual FIRE sector incomes and onto wages and salaries.

"Thanks largely to the $13 trillion Wall Street bailout – while keeping the debt overhead in place for America’s 'bottom 98 per cent' – this happy 2 per cent of the population now receives an estimated three quarters (~75 per cent) of the returns to wealth (interest, dividends, rent and capital gains). This is nearly double what it received a generation ago. The rest of the population is being squeezed, and foreclosures are rising."

Michael Hudson: Obama's Greatest Betrayal

$13 trillion bailout?
Any specifics on that?

 

[georgephillip]

What would you consider a more accurate figure?

 

[midcan5]

Conservatives are automatons, you can ask them serious questions till the cows come home and you get the same tired slogan. Corporate money has so brain washed them they no longer think - if they ever did. Why ask, didn't you know rich people create money? Sure they do. I'm still waiting for one on a desert island to disprove me. Sadly most died.

Money is only created in society, no person makes money, only a person who lives in a society, a country, a land, a nation, with the backing and enforcement of government is able to acquire property and thus money. Say that a thousand times and the conservatives still give the same tired cliches. Is it any wonder in power they fail so badly? Calling conservatives dumb would be a compliment.

"On moral grounds, then, we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent to return that wealth to its real owners. In the United States, even a flat tax of 70 percent would support all governmental programs (about half the total tax) and allow payment, with the remainder, of a patrimony of about $8,000 per annum per inhabitant, or $25,000 for a family of three. This would generously leave with the original recipients of the income about three times what, according to my rough guess, they had earned."UBI and the Flat Tax


As far as the super rich, they only make those enormous sums because of the state, so they are only morally entitled to an enormous sum, but not an absurd sum. The Conservative Nanny State

"Many conservatives and libertarians defend the current levels of income inequality on the basis of merit. They claim the rich got rich because they worked harder, longer or smarter than the rest. However, researchers have conducted a vast number of empirical studies on what factors contribute to success, and in what proportion. A classic example of one of these studies is the 1972 book Inequality, by Christopher Jencks. (1) And these studies show that the meritocrat's position is not just arguably wrong, but clearly wrong." The rich get rich because of their merit.


"Responsible Wealth, a project of United for a Fair Economy, is a network of over 700 business leaders and wealthy individuals in the top 5% of income and/or wealth in the US who use their surprising voice to advocate for fair taxes and corporate accountability. If you're in the top 5% (over $200,000 household income and/or over $1 million net assets) and you care about economic justice, please join Responsible Wealth today!" Responsible Wealth | United for a Fair Economy


"There is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and they are growing faster as well."

 

[georgephillip]

"The following fact was sent to numerous conservative pundits, politicians, and profit-seekers:

"Based on Tax Foundation figures, the richest 1% has TRIPLED its share of America's income over the past 30 years. Much of the gain came from tax cuts and minimally taxed financial instruments.

"If their income had increased only at the pace of American productivity (80%), they would be taking about a TRILLION DOLLARS LESS out of our economy.

"And a question was posed:

"In what way do the richest 1% deserve these extraordinary gains?

"This question was not posed in sarcasm.

"A factual answer is genuinely sought.

"It seems unlikely that 1% of the population worked three times harder than the rest of us, or contributed three times as much to American productivity.

"Money earned from tax cuts and minimally taxed financial instruments is not productive income."

Any takers, Cons?

The Question Conservatives Can't Answer | Common Dreams

I can answer that! The top 1% earned their wealth. They create jobs, they work much harder than the other 99% (Bill Gates routinely did 18 hour days my friend), and what they earned is not the US government's to take. Sorry.

They tripled their wealth because they earned it. Had you spent half as much time working as you do advocating taking from others (ie Communism), you would have tripled your wealth as well.

Why do you think bribing Republicans AND Democrats for tax favors qualifies as work?
Since they would not be earning any amount of money in the absence of government infrastructure, they are obligated to pay their fair share for maintaining government. Sorry.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What would you consider a more accurate figure?

Depends on what the author is including in bailout.

 

[georgephillip]

Conservatives are automatons, you can ask them serious questions till the cows come home and you get the same tired slogan. Corporate money has so brain washed them they no longer think - if they ever did. Why ask, didn't you know rich people create money? Sure they do. I'm still waiting for one on a desert island to disprove me. Sadly most died.

Money is only created in society, no person makes money, only a person who lives in a society, a country, a land, a nation, with the backing and enforcement of government is able to acquire property and thus money. Say that a thousand times and the conservatives still give the same tired cliches. Is it any wonder in power they fail so badly? Calling conservatives dumb would be a compliment.

"On moral grounds, then, we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent to return that wealth to its real owners. In the United States, even a flat tax of 70 percent would support all governmental programs (about half the total tax) and allow payment, with the remainder, of a patrimony of about $8,000 per annum per inhabitant, or $25,000 for a family of three. This would generously leave with the original recipients of the income about three times what, according to my rough guess, they had earned."UBI and the Flat Tax


As far as the super rich, they only make those enormous sums because of the state, so they are only morally entitled to an enormous sum, but not an absurd sum. The Conservative Nanny State

"Many conservatives and libertarians defend the current levels of income inequality on the basis of merit. They claim the rich got rich because they worked harder, longer or smarter than the rest. However, researchers have conducted a vast number of empirical studies on what factors contribute to success, and in what proportion. A classic example of one of these studies is the 1972 book Inequality, by Christopher Jencks. (1) And these studies show that the meritocrat's position is not just arguably wrong, but clearly wrong." The rich get rich because of their merit.


"Responsible Wealth, a project of United for a Fair Economy, is a network of over 700 business leaders and wealthy individuals in the top 5% of income and/or wealth in the US who use their surprising voice to advocate for fair taxes and corporate accountability. If you're in the top 5% (over $200,000 household income and/or over $1 million net assets) and you care about economic justice, please join Responsible Wealth today!" Responsible Wealth | United for a Fair Economy


"There is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and they are growing faster as well."

"The attitude of the nanny state conservatives toward tax evasion can be difficult to follow for those who both pay their taxes and know arithmetic. Taxation is how the government pays for the services it provides.

"Taxes are not voluntary — everyone disagrees with some uses of government money — but that doesn’t give people the option not to pay their taxes. Similarly, there is no perfect system of taxation and no matter how well the tax code is designed, there will inevitably be inequities.

"But this also does not give people the right to ignore their taxes. Furthermore, given a specific level of spending, when people avoid taxes, the burden shifts to everyone else.

"Taxes can be thought of as similar to condominium fees or assessments for sewage and sanitation by a community association. Once the fee structure has been set, paying the fee is a condition of staying in a condominium or owning a house in a community. It is not optional. The money that an owner of a condominium or a house pays is not “their money,” it is money owed to the larger group.

"It is the responsibility of the owner of the condominium or house to figure out how to pay the money. There should not be a little game whereby the condominium or community association has to entice the fees, or some fraction thereof, away from the individual owners.

"In fact, from the standpoint of the owners who do pay their required fees, the fees that go unpaid are the same as money spent by the association.

"Both unpaid fees and additional spending force the homeowners who follow the rules to pay higher assessments.

"Those interested in protecting the interest of the law abiding homeowner/taxpayer should show every bit as much concern about those who evade their taxes as they do about wasteful spending."

The Conservative Nanny State

When I first started following politics in the mid to late 1960s, the conservatives I knew, and there were many where I grew up, were unshakeable in their support for the US invasion and occupation of South Vietnam, racial segregation in this country and tax avoidance.

While I've never noticed an absence of physically courageous conservatives, their moral courage is mostly non-existent when it comes to issues like equality. Across the decades of my life only the Internet has offered a chance to "discuss" issues like taxation and segregation and empire with conservatives on a regular basis.

I couldn't spend five minutes in the same room with many USMB cons discussing taxes, and I'm sure they feel exactly the same way about me.

Finally, I strongly suspect the US (and global) economy will have to SCREAM loudly enough to focus our attention the way 911 did before much common ground will be found between progressives and cons on issues like taxes....and equality before the law.

 

[kaz]

Taxation is how the government pays for the services it provides

You can with a straight face claim that most of the money we spend on our Federal government is used to provide the American people with "services?"

 

[HUGGY]

"The following fact was sent to numerous conservative pundits, politicians, and profit-seekers:

"Based on Tax Foundation figures, the richest 1% has TRIPLED its share of America's income over the past 30 years. Much of the gain came from tax cuts and minimally taxed financial instruments.

"If their income had increased only at the pace of American productivity (80%), they would be taking about a TRILLION DOLLARS LESS out of our economy.

"And a question was posed:

"In what way do the richest 1% deserve these extraordinary gains?

"This question was not posed in sarcasm.

"A factual answer is genuinely sought.

"It seems unlikely that 1% of the population worked three times harder than the rest of us, or contributed three times as much to American productivity.

"Money earned from tax cuts and minimally taxed financial instruments is not productive income."

Any takers, Cons?

The Question Conservatives Can't Answer | Common Dreams

Obviously they rely on this tiny base for most of their contributions. Their message doesn't appeal to most Americans so they protect the few that contribute to their re-elections.

 

[georgephillip]

Taxation is how the government pays for the services it provides

You can with a straight face claim that most of the money we spend on our Federal government is used to provide the American people with "services?"

Did the Federal government play a role in teaching you how to read?

Most of the money we waste on the Federal government goes to Wall Street and the Pentagon.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Taxation is how the government pays for the services it provides

You can with a straight face claim that most of the money we spend on our Federal government is used to provide the American people with "services?"

Yep... read through his posts.... you and I couldn't get most of it out without bursting into laughter.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Taxation is how the government pays for the services it provides

You can with a straight face claim that most of the money we spend on our Federal government is used to provide the American people with "services?"

Did the Federal government play a role in teaching you how to read?

Most of the money we waste on the Federal government goes to Wall Street and the Pentagon.

No. Nor did anyone else... What's wrong with you?

 

[georgephillip]

"The following fact was sent to numerous conservative pundits, politicians, and profit-seekers:

"Based on Tax Foundation figures, the richest 1% has TRIPLED its share of America's income over the past 30 years. Much of the gain came from tax cuts and minimally taxed financial instruments.

"If their income had increased only at the pace of American productivity (80%), they would be taking about a TRILLION DOLLARS LESS out of our economy.

"And a question was posed:

"In what way do the richest 1% deserve these extraordinary gains?

"This question was not posed in sarcasm.

"A factual answer is genuinely sought.

"It seems unlikely that 1% of the population worked three times harder than the rest of us, or contributed three times as much to American productivity.

"Money earned from tax cuts and minimally taxed financial instruments is not productive income."

Any takers, Cons?

The Question Conservatives Can't Answer | Common Dreams

Obviously they rely on this tiny base for most of their contributions. Their message doesn't appeal to most Americans so they protect the few that contribute to their re-elections.

"And while some big earners have developed innovative ideas and leading-edge businesses, it seems fair to say that taxpayer-funded research at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (the Internet), the National Institute of Health (pharmaceuticals), and the National Science Foundation (the Digital Library Initiative) has laid a half-century foundation for their idea-building.

So I asked anyone out there to explain, defend, or justify the fact that over 20% of our country's income (it was 7% in 1980) now goes to the richest 1% of Americans."

Plato's eternal political triangle is playing out before our eyes.

Democracies polarize into rich and poor along creditor/debtor lines producing an oligarchy.
Over generations the oligarchy becomes an aristocracy with rival families competing for control.
Eventually one of these families brings "the people" into the fight, and the eternal struggle shifts back to its "Democracy" phase.

I don't see any way of dealing with this problem by "choosing" between Republican OR Democrat in the voting booth.

The Question Conservatives Can't Answer | Common Dreams

 

[georgephillip]

The OP is flawed.

It's not "America's income"

Income belongs to those who earn it not to America.

I think the term "America's income" refers to the total US national income earned by all workers in a single year.

The richest 1% of Americans have tripled their share of total income over the last 40 years.

I don't believe they've earned that money in any meaningful way; I'm even more certain that level of inequality is not sustainable over the next four decades.

Point number one...There is no such thing as a "share" of US income. Each individual earns their income through labor or investment. There is no magical pot of money from which we all draw after filling out some kind of voucher. Your premise presupposes the existence of a zero sum game. That premise is false. What your next door neighbor or a guy in Walla Walla, Washington earns has ZERO effect on you or anyone else.
How may friggin times must this be explained to you before you get it?
What you think of how a man or woman accumulates their earnings or wealth is immaterial. It's none of your business. It is certainly not for you to judge. You have no say in the matter nor should you. And you will never have a say.

Whether capitalism functions as a zero sum game or not, there is a finite number that's produced annually by totaling the income of all US taxpayers. In 1980 the richest 1% of taxpayers' SHARE of that years total US income was 8%.

In 2008 it was 20%.

Are you disputing that?

Exactly how someone accumulates their earnings and wealth is immaterial only if you don't mind being robbed at gunpoint for your share of national income. The richest 1% are robbing you of what you've earned by making campaign donations to politicians instead of using a gun.

You're still being robbed, but apparently you're to friggin' brainwashed to notice.