November 8, 2006
From the desk of Jane Galt:Coyote morning
A lot of libertarians, including me, got what we wanted this morning: a Democratic Congress.
I've got a baaaaaaad feeling that we're going to be suffering buyer's remorse by spring . . .
Update: Already starting . . . .
Posted by Jane Galt at November 8, 2006 1:28 PM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound links"); ?>It takes some nerve to start fudging your support for the Democrats this quickly, Jane. That's kind of pathetic. As if you couldn't have foreseen this "bad feeling" of yours before you went into the voting booth yesterday? Doesn't say much for your ability to look ahead.
Posted by: Mark on November 8, 2006 1:35 PMOr maybe sooner when/if the idiotarians who drank the “divided government” Kool-Aid realize that all they’ve done is guarantee another two years wasted with no sort of entitlement reform as the baby boom generation gets closer to retirement and the unfunded liabilities of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security increase by another $600 billion a year.
Meet the new bums, same as the old bums, except for immigration, judges, and maybe taxes. Wheeee!
Posted by: AT on November 8, 2006 1:37 PMI hope this resignation of Rumsfeld isn't an example of how quickly Bush will cave in to Dem's demands. He already wants amnesty for illegals, so that's a given. He has shown he will restrict free trade if expedient (remember steel). And mucking around with the pharms and medical insurance industry will most likely happen. No tort reform, no death tax reduction, no fair tax, no (partial) privitization of soc sec, really nothing until we get a fighter in the White House.
Posted by: al on November 8, 2006 1:38 PMBuyer's remorse: well, duh.
Thorley: it's not like the R's have managed entitlement reform, unless you count the stupidly complicated and massivly expensive medicare drug bill or the proposal to offer social security to illegals to be "reform."
Posted by: Rob Lyman on November 8, 2006 1:39 PMMark,
I think you're being a bit unfair to Jane. Who ever gets to vote for
what they want? Did you?
The GOP is about 18 votes short of a majority in the House. There are 37 Blue Dog Democrats in the old House, and there will likely be more in the new House.
If Pence and Shadegg win Minority Leader and Minority Whip, there's potentially a solid working majority in the House for balancing the budget by cutting spending.
Posted by: Maniakes on November 8, 2006 1:50 PMThorley: it's not like the R's have managed entitlement reform, unless you count the stupidly complicated and massivly expensive medicare drug bill or the proposal to offer social security to illegals to be "reform."Medicare Part D is what you get with “divided government” when you need 60 votes to govern in the Senate and when Republicans are gun shy after having lost the Senate to a party that promised a larger benefit. Although in fairness to the Reps, it did introduce the concept of means-testing and market competition to an entitlement program – something that the Dems fought tooth and nail against – which is going to have to be part of any long-term solution. The Republicans also did try to fix Medicaid (which is a larger problem than Medicare which is a larger problem than Social Security) by trying to implement several reforms suggested by the National Governors Association including granting States more flexibility for experimenting with various market mechanisms (something that gets lost in the debate is that the Bush administration has been far more “liberal” in granting waivers to States to experiment) which were defeated by Democrats and a minority of GOP defectors because it would “cut” Medicaid. The House has generally been more favorable to entitlement reform than the Senate (which makes it particularly stupid to move that body further to the Left) and the President had been pushing for indexing Social Security benefits as part of the next budget – something unlikely particularly seeing as how so many members of Congress who were pro-reform went down in flames last night. Enjoy the Kool-Aid. Posted by: Thorley Winston on November 8, 2006 1:52 PM
I think it will be interesting to remind people who waved brooms around, and demanded the "bums be swept out", just exactly who it is they have swept in from time to time. John Conyers will most likely chair the House Judiciary committee; he'll be in a position to use the threat of impeachment proceedings against the White House to enforce compliance. Not that GW Bush seems prone to veto much of anything, but with the threat of being "Nixonized" on the horizon, he'll likely comply with the wishes of the Congress. Dumping Rumsfeld this A.M. pretty much shows the direction, and the strain in Bush's voice as he equivocated around the question of "is this in response to the election" wasn't pretty to hear.
So let's review just what you've signed up for, Jane, just off the top of my head:
Tort reform is now dead. Social Security reform is now dead. Medicare reform, except as part of expansion into single-payer health care is now dead. Free trade agreement expansion? That's dead, too, Jane. But not to worry, raising the minimum wage to $7.00/hr or more, with further increases tied to the CPI is sure to pass, and that's got to be more useful to the US economy than any old silly free trade agreements, right, Jane? Of course taxes, especially on "the rich" must go up immediately, and capital gains taxes must go up the most. I'm sure that'll help the economy too.
Oh, and the signing ceremony next spring for the comprehensive amnesty & fast track to citizenship for all illegal aliens (so they can vote the straight Democrat ticket in 2008) should be interesting to watch. Will Vincente Fox be invited, for example? How about Ibraham Hooper of C.A.I.R.? Representatives of La Raza Unida? It should be a real photo-op of the first order, on a par with Bill Clinton hugging Yassir Arafat in the Rose Garden...
Posted by: ellipsis on November 8, 2006 2:01 PMTo quote from a previous election:
"You broke it; you bought it"
Elections "settle" things only until the next election. Yes, the Democrats won big. They capitalized on voter anger over the quasi-disaster in Iraq and GOP corruption in Congress. It's the equivalent of 1986, 1998, and 2000 when they made solid gains in legislative elections.
Bush has to stop the bleeding or else the Democrats will also win the presidency in 2008.
Posted by: D------ on November 8, 2006 2:08 PMYou took a position whereby you spanked one group of children by replacing them with another just as likely to piss you off.
With that strategy, I'd say you get exactly what you deserve.
Posted by: Gabriel Malor on November 8, 2006 2:17 PMOne good result for Republicans - Hastert steps down. A nice enoght guy, but nice doesn't cut it now.
Posted by: al on November 8, 2006 2:19 PMActually I am leading toward this actually working. I don't see the Dems doing to Bush what the Republicans - the blowback would simply be too huge. Let's give this divided government thing a chance. It's important to keep in mind that many of the Democrats winning this election are pretty conservative (in fact if you dropped them in the way back machine to 1976 - they would all look like Goldwater Republicans). So I am counting the Democrats to be more conservative than they have been in the past. As far as the legislative points (minimum wage) is not going to have much of an effect on anything as the labor pool is so tight now that almost no one gets paid the minimum wage. Great symbolic gesture - almost no real effect.
Posted by: Brian Despain on November 8, 2006 2:26 PMI think you're being a bit unfair to Jane. Who ever gets to vote for what they want? Did you?
Rarely do we get to choose someone who is exactly what we want, but whomever we choose is presumably more like what we want than the alternatives. I think you're weasling here like Jane.
Jane felt the Democrats were the better option, and here it is barely after noon of the day after the election and she is already fudging on her decision. I guess that will provide her cover for the next two years when the Dems get busy with their anti-libertarian agenda. "Why, I had my doubts about them way back in November 2006," she can say.
Ridiculous. Pisses me off.
Posted by: Mark on November 8, 2006 2:29 PMTort reform is now dead. Social Security reform is now dead. Medicare reform, except as part of expansion into single-payer health care is now dead. Free trade agreement expansion? That's dead, too, Jane. But not to worry, raising the minimum wage to $7.00/hr or more, with further increases tied to the CPI is sure to pass, and that's got to be more useful to the US economy than any old silly free trade agreements, right, Jane? Of course taxes, especially on "the rich" must go up immediately, and capital gains taxes must go up the most. I'm sure that'll help the economy too.I’m not sure that the Dems will be able to get a tax hike through that targets “the rich” but I wouldn’t be surprised if they try to pass some sort of “windfall profits” tax on pharmaceuticals, petroleum, or other politically unpopular industries. Maybe some sort of amendment to ERISA to allow States to implement “Wal-Mart laws.” Expect also to see legislation for importing Canadian price controls and/or trying to amend Medicare Part D to have the federal government do it through “negotiation.” Posted by: Thorley Winston on November 8, 2006 2:31 PM
Bush gets more hard headed about the 'war' more troops die. Nation gets even more pissed in 2 years and the dems sweep again including the whitehouse.
prediction; the president or vice president will be a woman or an african american
Posted by: judson on November 8, 2006 2:33 PMJane Galt,
I'm honestly just tired of all of this. I say let the Dems have their way. Don't obstruct or assist in any way. Whatever they say they want, let them have it. Leave them with no one else to blame. John Galt was right.
Posted by: Randy on November 8, 2006 2:34 PMThorley - the no negotiation part of Medicare Part D has always bothered me. Any company that doesn't use it's buying power to negotiate is leaving money on the table. It's a principle that works for WalMart and it should work for the US goverment but like most things it's in the excution that things will get fouled up.
"capital gains taxes must go up the most"
You know capital gains is taxed at a LOWER rate than payroll taxes right?
Posted by: Brian Despain on November 8, 2006 2:35 PMBeing a little hard on the general electorate, aren't we? I remember back in 2002/04 when it was the Democrats who eagerly hopped on the "blame the stupid voters/you get what you deserve/idiotarians are ruining the country" brigade. Nice to see that they aren't the only ones who engage in self-righteous masturbation in response to their failure to garner an electoral majority.
Posted by: Immoralist on November 8, 2006 2:35 PMI doubt you will be suffering buyer's remorse in the Spring. The remorse may come in January 2009, but not before (well, maybe November 2008 but you would get a temporary pardon).
The Democrats will not try impeachment, and the government will run on a continuing resolution for the next couple of years.
Posted by: Yancey Ward on November 8, 2006 2:37 PMThe only real chance of confrontation is if Stevens or Ginsberg dies on the bench and Bush gets to select a replacement. However, I am expecting that not to happen, and even if it did I am sure that both justices have told their staff to have them stuffed and placed in their seats for oral arguments until a Democrat president can be elected.
Posted by: Yancey Ward on November 8, 2006 2:40 PMThe silver lining. The Democrats will now be emboldened to run Hillary Clinton for President in 08.
Surely, even in their most frothing-at-the-mouth moments, nobody expects that ticket to win.
Thorley - the no negotiation part of Medicare Part D has always bothered me. Any company that doesn't use it's buying power to negotiate is leaving money on the table. It's a principle that works for WalMart and it should work for the US goverment but like most things it's in the excution that things will get fouled up.
Not really, the goal of Medicare Part D was to provide seniors with an array of options for different prescription drug plans rather than a “one size fits all” program. The way it is structured now, companies compete by offering different plans in different regions with different costs for different drugs which BTW has actually made them cheaper than a lot of the naysayers predicted and has allowed the market to work at developing new innovations. Having the feds “negotiate” on such a large scale only makes sense if you’re the sort who thinks that we only need one drug to treat a particular ailment.
Again, I was and remain opposed to Medicare Part D with the exception of the HSA’s and the introduction of means-testing (which never would have gotten past a Democrat Congress) portions. But since it was pretty much a foregone conclusion in 2001 that we were going to get some of drug benefit for Medicare recipients, I’m glad that Republicans at least tried to find a price mechanism that did relatively little distortion to the market (by having competition and an array of choices – something that Democrats hammered on as being “confusing”) rather than creating a one-size fits all program. Hopefully when we finally fix Medicare and Medicaid, Congress and the President will (since eliminating these programs is unlikely to happen) try a similar type of market-driven system so that we can keep the innovation that makes our health care system the best in world while using competition rather than government edict to control prices.
What ever happened to wanting an honest, accountable government? I thought that was also what libertarians wanted. Is your hate for taxes and minimum wage so great you are willing to turn a blind eye to corruption, cronyism, near complete lack of oversight along with all the other stuff like the a disasterous war that will be costing trillions, prisoner abuse, torture, etc? Why dont you just come out and say that you want a one party state (where that party treats you like dirt).
Posted by: MS on November 8, 2006 3:13 PMMS,
You've won. The blame game won't work anymore. Its time to actually do something.
Posted by: Randy on November 8, 2006 3:20 PMLet a Pelosi led Congress pass some version of McCain-Feingold II along with public financing of elections and you will not have to worry about which party to be made at. There will only be one party left functioning in the US. Look at the District of Columbia as an example of what you get when the Republicans become non-functional.
Posted by: superdestroyer on November 8, 2006 3:28 PMI think Jane is afraid that the "good and hard" part of HL Mencken's quote is on the way.
Posted by: bud on November 8, 2006 3:29 PMYou won't be having as much buyer's regret as the people Kathryn Lopez quotes today at The Corner:
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) on November 8, 2006 3:38 PM
"If Bush had vetoed a few spending bills, even to be overridden, more conservatives would have been rooting for his team this year."
Thorley Winston wrote:
I’m not sure that the Dems will be able to get a tax hike through that targets “the rich” but I wouldn’t be surprised if they try to pass some sort of “windfall profits” tax on pharmaceuticals, petroleum, or other politically unpopular industries.
If the recession starts in 1Q of '07 as I expect it to, "taxing the rich" will become a whole lot more politically acceptable, and hitting "Wall Street fat cats" in the capital gains wallet most especially. A windfall profits tax on petro, especially natural gas if this winter is even the least bit colder than usual (impossible, of course, with "global warming" I know...) would surely fly.
Oh, and when do the Bush tax cuts expire, again? I can't remember if it's '10, or sooner.
Maybe some sort of amendment to ERISA to allow States to implement “Wal-Mart laws.” Expect also to see legislation for importing Canadian price controls and/or trying to amend Medicare Part D to have the federal government do it through “negotiation.”
Oh, heck, I forgot that one. Killing off all profits for the pharma industry is indeed an important agenda item, along with requiring them to do more research...
"capital gains taxes must go up the most"
You know capital gains is taxed at a LOWER rate than payroll taxes right?
Yes, I know that. You know that it has not always been true, right?
Posted by: ellipsis on November 8, 2006 3:57 PMThe only thing the American people got in this election is two years of investigations to use as fodder to elect a Democratic President.
Nothing gets done for two years cept "make work" legislation which are obvious "duhs" to the American electorate.
Can't someone start a third party that isn't whacked out on issues to force real debate?
How about having a crusade across America for voters to vote for who they do not know. Big money, special interest and lobbyist can really take it in the shorts then.
Posted by: Ty on November 8, 2006 3:57 PMThe only thing the American people got in this election is two years of investigations to use as fodder to elect a Democratic President.
Nothing gets done for two years cept "make work" legislation which are obvious "duhs" to the American electorate.
Can't someone start a third party that isn't whacked out on issues to force real debate?
How about having a crusade across America for voters to vote for who they do not know. Big money, special interest and lobbyist can really take it in the shorts then.
Posted by: Ty on November 8, 2006 3:58 PM
"capital gains taxes must go up the most"
You know capital gains is taxed at a LOWER rate than payroll taxes right?
Yes, I know that. So?
Posted by: ellipsis on November 8, 2006 3:59 PMEllipsis - Why don't we wait to see what they do first? I mean really. No need to actually know what happens right? I mean you are getting worked up over thngs they haven't done.
As far a capital gains here they are (Usual legal disclaimers apply)
Current Capital Gains Tax Rates (as of May 30, 2004)
Stocks, Bonds, and Mutual Funds
* 8% - For individuals in the 10% or 15% income tax bracket who held the investment for over 1 year.
* 15% - For individuals in the 25% income tax bracket or higher who held the investment for over 1 year.
For example, if you buy 100 shares of Microsoft at $25 in 1999 and sell it at $30 in 2002, you would have a capital gain of $500. Assuming your in the 25% tax bracket, that gain would be taxed at 15%, so you would pay $75 of your $500 to Uncle Sam and put the rest of your $425 in your pocket.
Real Estate owned as investment
* 25% - For individuals in the 25% bracket or higher who own the real estate for longer than 1 year.
There's some more complication on real estate investments due to depreciation and possible improvements.
Collectables and Small Business Stock
* 28% - For individuals who own collectibles (such as stamps, coins, comic books, etc.) or small business stock and whose income tax bracket is 28% or higher.
Homes
* 0% - For individuals who have used their home as their primary residence for 2 years or more. You can exclude up to $250,000 of the gain of the home from capital gain taxes. If you are married, this can be up to $500,000 of the gain.
You can minimize your exposure on capital gains through various methods. Consult an over paid tax attorney. The easiest is to lower your tax bracket.
Posted by: Brian Despain on November 8, 2006 4:03 PMLooking through the various news websites, I see that good old William "Cold Cash" Jefferson, (D - FreezerFullOfCashDuringKatrina) won the first round. He had 12 opponents splintering the field, and got 30% of the vote. He goes into a runoff, which as incumbant he's positioned to win. Now, what was that about "the corruption issue", again?
Posted by: ellipsis on November 8, 2006 4:10 PMAh yes, we pass another election cycle, the vote count is in, and so we get to engage in another exciting episode of...Sore Loser Syndrome, co-hosted by Chicken Little!
Regarding buyer's remorse: Well, sure. Play politics, get buyer's remorse. File that one with "don't eat, get hungry" and other like pearls of common wisdom.
Meanwhile, regardless of whether you approve of his performance, was anyone actually surprised to see Rumsfield get the boot? He's been a lightning rod for criticism, and Bush plays politics. While dealing with a Republican majority, it wasn't a problem; but now it will be. Getting Rumsfiled out, for better or worse, is a pre-requisite to having a meaningful dialogue with the 110th Congress come January.
Let's just hope Pelosi is a bright enough bulb to realize that this wasn't a victory for the ultra-left seague to which she has traditionally tailored her voice. Let's hope. Although personally, I'm expecting something more along the line of Judge Judy with a bad hangover.
Posted by: anony-mouse on November 8, 2006 4:13 PMBrian Despain wrote:
Ellipsis - Why don't we wait to see what they do first? I mean really. No need to actually know what happens right? I mean you are getting worked up over thngs they haven't done.
These are all good points. However, after watching the Democrat Party at work for over 25 years, I think it is safe to predict some tax increases. Bush isn't going to veto them, not with the threat of impeachement hanging over his head. Yes, I know Speaker To Be Pelosi said today that was off the table, but John Conyers may have different ideas, and in any event Speaker To Be Pelosi has the perogative of changing her mind...
Thanks for posting the cap gains information. You do understand that all of these things can be changed in a rather short time, and have been more than once in the last, oh, 40 years?
Posted by: ellipsis on November 8, 2006 4:14 PMThe only thing the American people got in this election is two years of investigations to use as fodder to elect a Democratic President.
Not the only thing. But I'd rather have investigations over no investigations. The downside of not having investigations is unaccountable politicians and corruption.
You've won. The blame game won't work anymore. Its time to actually do something.
I agree. I was just asking people with buyer's remorse. How bad would the Republicans have to get before you stop feeling any?
Posted by: MS on November 8, 2006 4:14 PMI just thought of a bright spot in this. The DU/Kos/Huffington tinfoil hat brigade will at long last shut up, already about "Diebold" and "rigged elections". If there's any election that the Republicans would surely have rigged, if it was within their power, it's this one. Now Robert F. Kennedy Junior, just for a start, can find another hobbyhorse to ride; nothing too hard, like a real job, mind you...but something else.
Posted by: ellipsis on November 8, 2006 4:18 PMA windfall profits tax on petro, especially natural gas if this winter is even the least bit colder than usual (impossible, of course, with "global warming" I know...) would surely fly.
Hmm...but the last reports I heard, held that natural gas prices would drop this winter.
Posted by: anony-mouse on November 8, 2006 4:20 PManony-mouse squeaked:
Let's just hope Pelosi is a bright enough bulb to realize that this wasn't a victory for the ultra-left seague to which she has traditionally tailored her voice. Let's hope. Although personally, I'm expecting something more along the line of Judge Judy with a bad hangover.
Bit of an optimist, are we? I don't see how Speaker To Be Pelosi will be able to restrain herself, frankly, given that some chunk of her Congressional district is certifiable flying-monkey-moonbat.
Posted by: ellipsis on November 8, 2006 4:22 PMNot the only thing. But I'd rather have investigations over no investigations. The downside of not having investigations is unaccountable politicians and corruption.
Go for it. Just keep in mind two things:
1. These investigations have a habit of turning up skeletons in shades of both red and blue.
2. The Dems were given a majority, but not exactly a mandate. How they use that majority in the next two years will speak heavily for or against them in 2008.
Posted by: anony-mouse on November 8, 2006 4:24 PMBit of an optimist, are we? I don't see how Speaker To Be Pelosi will be able to restrain herself, frankly, given that some chunk of her Congressional district is certifiable flying-monkey-moonbat.
Just checked, and regardless of the merits of that, the sky is still nailed firmly in place.
Posted by: anony-mouse on November 8, 2006 4:27 PMI wrote:
A windfall profits tax on petro, especially natural gas if this winter is even the least bit colder than usual (impossible, of course, with "global warming" I know...) would surely fly.
anony-mouse:
Hmm...but the last reports I heard, held that natural gas prices would drop this winter.
I read that, too, but am skeptical of it for various reasons. The rig count is up, way up, and yet most activity seems to either be on the edge of existing fields, or in coal-seam i.e. "nontraditional" gas. Coal-seam stuff is low pressure, requires a lot of shallow wells and was derided as not worth the effort to get it just 15 or so years ago. That we are actively going after coal-seam is disquieting to me. Gas wells are funny things, they don't give the same kinds of warnings that oil wells do, and they sure as heck don't respond to secondary/tertiary recovery the way oil does. One of the things the "Peak Oil Sky Is Falling" people get right is the "cliff" nature of gas wells when they are playing out.
October is already cooler than average, according to the Nat. Weather Service, if the trend continues, the 52% of US homes that heat with gas will burning more of the stuff, and those that heat with electricity will be demanding more from utilities, more than a few of which generate with natural gas fired powerplants.
So the price of natural gas could go up, even though the price of heating oil might go down. Of course, heating oil is much more important than gas, because reporters who live in the Greater New York Area are more likely to heat with oil...
Posted by: ellipsis on November 8, 2006 4:32 PM
Not the only thing. But I'd rather have investigations over no investigations. The downside of not having investigations is unaccountable politicians and corruption.
Anony-mouse wrote:
Go for it. Just keep in mind two things:
1. These investigations have a habit of turning up skeletons in shades of both red and blue.
Of course, not all skeltons are equal. For example, it would have been fully appropriate for the 9/11 commission to throw open the door to Jamie Gorelick's closet, with cameras rolling & lights hot, right? Did that happen?
2. The Dems were given a majority, but not exactly a mandate.
No, no, no! The Will Of The People Has Spoken! Congress now, White House in 2008.
How they use that majority in the next two years will speak heavily for or against them in 2008.
If they import 20 to 40 million new party-line voters between now and then, what effect do you think that will have?
I wrote:
"Bit of an optimist, are we? I don't see how Speaker To Be Pelosi will be able to restrain herself, frankly, given that some chunk of her Congressional district is certifiable flying-monkey-moonbat."
anony-mouse replied
Just checked, and regardless of the merits of that, the sky is still nailed firmly in place.
Didn't say otherwise, but rather was trying to point out the futility of expecting sanity from this San Francisco Democrat. Canniness, sure, cunning, absolutely, cleverness, you bet. Sanity? Nah, I don't think so. Might as well expect Mike Moore to lose weight and start making honest, interesting, movies...
Posted by: ellipsis on November 8, 2006 4:39 PMThese elections virtually guarantee a Democratic win in the presidential election in 08. The inevitable recession will make Bush so unpopular that Republicans will be looking back on these results as the good old days.
Posted by: Eamon on November 8, 2006 4:45 PMThe Dems were given a majority, but not exactly a mandate.
Actually Dems received 57% of the vote for the Senate (32 million out of 56). Thats quite a bit more support than electoral realities imply, and certainly greater than the amount Bush thought he had back in 04.
Posted by: MS on November 8, 2006 4:49 PMHow does Jane's Law apply to this election?
Will the Democrats remain smug and arrogant, will they remain insane, or will they do both?
Maybe we'll get some smug insanity.
Posted by: Joseph Hertzlinger on November 8, 2006 5:35 PMI would caution against overreaction. People have a natural tendency to think that whatever happened yesterday will happen today and forevermore. Remember when the Repubs swept in in 1994 and rolled up their sleeves, thinking they were going to put through a pile of nice new small-government legislation? Then when the polls showed people didn't really want that (they just wanted to feel like they wanted it), most of it dried up. The Dems won because people were tired of the Republicans doing crap they didn't like, like going to war and spending too much money. So the Democrats will stick their necks out soon, and they'll almost immediately find that people don't want to buy what they're selling either. In this case, it'll happen faster than in '94, because it's probable that what the Dems are offering now isn't even what people thought they wanted in the first place. They just didn't want the GOP anymore.
Posted by: Mike W on November 8, 2006 6:08 PMEamon,
These elections virtually guarantee a Democratic win in the presidential election in 08. The inevitable recession will make Bush so unpopular that Republicans will be looking back on these results as the good old days.
Maybe you can provide some evidence of the "inevitable" recession? Something in the form of historical data where recessions are positively correlated with Democrat controlled congress after a 6-12 month lag? I'm calling BS on this but I'd love to be proven wrong.
Here is my attempt - not quite what I was looking for but ...
link
Actually Dems received 57% of the vote for the Senate (32 million out of 56). Thats quite a bit more support than electoral realities imply, and certainly greater than the amount Bush thought he had back in 04.
Yes, but with only 33 out of 50 states participating, and when 55% of the incumbents were Dems.
What were the party shares of the House vote?
Posted by: AT on November 8, 2006 6:37 PMJane,
Corner says that Pelosi said that the war in Iraq is "not a war to be won but a situation to be solved."
She must not believe in the Patton Theory of Americans at war.
Posted by: AT on November 8, 2006 6:43 PMYou're famous. In glossy print media no less. Much deserved! Check out the latest edition of Foreign Policy, page 95. Congrats!
Posted by: Eva Mogensen on November 8, 2006 7:17 PMAT writes:
Corner says that Pelosi said that the war in Iraq is "not a war to be won but a situation to be solved."
That is consistent with her worldview.
She must not believe in the Patton Theory of Americans at war.
Pelosi doesn't believe we are at war.
Posted by: ellipsis on November 8, 2006 7:23 PMMS asks for evidence we are about to enter a recession.
Housing is falling in the tank. Yes, I know Cramer called a bottom, but the Pulte guy he talked to, who actually builds houses for money, refused to join him. When housing gets really sick and builders start going broke, all the subcontractors they hire won't have work, all the laborers won't have work, and they'll stop buying stuff. The consumer is 70% of the economy. Housing is arguably already in a recession.
WalMart just turned in same store sales numbers that showed a 0.5% increase, the worst show for them since late 2000. What happened in 2001, anyone remember? I'm seeing sales with price cuts usually reserved for post-Thanksgiving or even post-Christmas sales, in early November...
Ford lost a dumptruck full of money and is closing plants. GM is not in good shape. The auto industry is arguably already in a recession.
The Philly report on manufacturing was bad. Manufacturing is arguably in, or sliding into, a recession.
That leaves consumer spending, which as noted above is nothing to cheer about.
So there's your recession, starting in Q1 of 2007. It has nothing to with this election at all, please note...
Posted by: ellipsis on November 8, 2006 7:30 PMPelosi doesn't believe we are at war.
Maybe she heard someone say "mission accomplished"
Posted by: MS on November 8, 2006 7:32 PMJane points to a Slate article by Tim Noah entitled "It's Time To Socialize Medicine". Here's an excerpt: The signs of breakdown are everywhere, from the emergency room overflowing with uninsured people...
One way to reduce the number of uninsured by at least 10 million is simple: enforce the existing laws on illegal immigration, thereby encouraging other illegal aliens to go home. This would have the effect of making it possible for emergency rooms from Brownsville to San Diego to stay open without extra help, as a bonus. Of course Noah cannot propose that, because no good liberal would ever dream of sending that many future party-line Democrats out of the country.
As an aside, I did not know that Tim Noah's wife died of cancer. That's terrible, just terrible, and I feel very sorry for him.
ellipsis,
The post I was responding to made it seem that the Dem victory would somehow cause or contribute to the recession. Which is BS. Whether or not we are actually heading into a recession I dont know. You are probably correct that we are.
Posted by: MS on November 8, 2006 7:43 PMI wrote:
Pelosi doesn't believe we are at war.
MS replied:
Maybe she heard someone say "mission accomplished"
Maybe she gets up and leaves after one inning of baseball, figuring the game is over, too.
Posted by: ellipsis on November 8, 2006 7:46 PMJane points to a Slate article by Tim Noah entitled "It's Time To Socialize Medicine".
Tim Noah would have written that article had the Republicans won; he'd just write a different political analysis of why it would be good for whomever to do so.
He'd have written that article if there had been a split decision, or if Bush had had a heart attack and Cheney became President. He'll write the same article in November 2008, no matter what the result.
Posted by: Anthony on November 8, 2006 8:00 PMMS wrote:
ellipsis,
The post I was responding to made it seem that the Dem victory would somehow cause or contribute to the recession. Which is BS. Whether or not we are actually heading into a recession I dont know. You are probably correct that we are.
Oh. Ok. I read the posting you responded to as "the recession is baked in the cake no matter who gets elected", but re-reading it, I see how it could look to you as "Democrats get elected, recession follows".
Posted by: ellipsis on November 8, 2006 8:07 PMWell ellipsis I know that cap gains tax can be changed at the drop of a hat - But my feeling is that it shouldn't be a LOWER percentage than payroll taxes - If you want to cut payroll match I would be all for that. As far as the Slate story - one man has had a terrible experience at the hands of the healthcare system. It doesn't mean it will happen. Was he elected to some position or does he hold a position of leadership? No.
Posted by: Brian Despain on November 8, 2006 8:17 PMOk, I'll bite: why should cap gains be the same as payroll (income) taxes? Do you view income taxation as a socially neutral revenue-gathering measure, alone, or do you expect there to be a "social justice" component as well?
Posted by: ellipsis on November 8, 2006 8:21 PM"socially neutral revenue-gathering measure" of course what else could it be? Why shouldn't it be taxed at the same rate? Mind you I am pretty open here but seems to me it should be but I haven't extensively studied the macroeconomic effects.
Having cap gains taxes lower than payroll is regressive taxation. I know this will produce a bunch of "so whats" from most people here I'm not even going to try to get into this.
Posted by: MS on November 8, 2006 9:06 PMBrian Depain wrote:
"socially neutral revenue-gathering measure" of course what else could it be?
It's pretty axiomatic that if you want less of something, whether it's gasoline consumption or savings, taxing it is a good way to accomplish that aim. There's lots of "if's", "maybe's", and unintended consequences, but that's the gist of it. Raising taxes on machineguns, for example, is supposed to make it more expensive for them to own, and thus make ordinary people less inclined to buy one.
So a tax can be a revenue gathering measure and have some social policy; import duties, for example, "sin" taxes, for another.
Why shouldn't it be taxed at the same rate?
Ah, ah, ah, I asked you first. Why should cap gains be taxed at the same rate as income?
Mind you I am pretty open here but seems to me it should be but I haven't extensively studied the macroeconomic effects.
Well, we're on even ground, because I haven't studied the macro effects, either. I'm just asking, why should cap gains be taxed at the same rate as ordinary income?
MS wrote:
Having cap gains taxes lower than payroll is regressive taxation. I know this will produce a bunch of "so whats" from most people here I'm not even going to try to get into this.
Oh, yeah? Well try this on: any tax on cap gains, or savings account interest for that matter at all is double taxation. Want to get into that instead?
Ellipsis, all income is taxed multiple times... I make $10, I pay $3 tax. I pay the remaining $7 to my barber, he pays $2 tax, etc. Is that $2 'double tax'?
Posted by: wallster on November 8, 2006 10:16 PMHm....nah, I don't think so, since the tax is on the transfer of money from you to him for services rendered. Are you saying that there should be an income tax on any loan repayment?
Posted by: ellipsis on November 8, 2006 10:53 PMPeople are too serious. Why not read Noah's article. It's good stuff, for example (my caps):
"Krugman and Wells note that when Taiwan switched to a single-payer system in 1995, overall health-care costs WENT DOWN:
[T]he percentage of the population with health insurance soared from 57 percent to 97 percent, yet health care costs actually GREW MORE SLOWLY..."
He is so smart. I think we should all do whatever he says.
Ellipsis,
I dont consider it double taxation. You earn interest on your capital, or any appreciation of assets - money you never had before and never had to lift a finger to get (aside, obviously, from your original principal). Once you have accumulated a sufficient amount you never have to work another day in your life. I dont see it as unfair to have this income taxed.
If by double taxation you mean the taxes that corporations pay out of their income before dividends then thats a different matter (which I really dont want to get into).
Posted by: MS on November 8, 2006 11:43 PMMS wrote:
I dont consider it double taxation. You earn interest on your capital, or any appreciation of assets - money you never had before and never had to lift a finger to get (aside, obviously, from your original principal).
What if the loans are not paid back to me? That is to say, is there some risk involved, here? Did I not do some work to determine who should borrow my money and who should not?
Once you have accumulated a sufficient amount you never have to work another day in your life.
Unless, of course, it all evaporates. One ancestor of mine lost a lot of money, most of his savings in fact, in a Panic about 100 years ago. Should he have applied to the government for a refund of his income taxes? (this is a rhetorical question...)
I dont see it as unfair to have this income taxed.
If by double taxation you mean the taxes that corporations pay out of their income before dividends then thats a different matter (which I really dont want to get into).
Aw, why not? What else are you doing with your time right now, reading Noah's dopey article over at Slate?
Joe, Noah surely has sufficient ambiguity to be a good oracle, but are you sure he's up to the job of philosopher-god-king?
Posted by: ellipsis on November 8, 2006 11:58 PMHowever, after watching the Democrat Party at work for over 25 years...
And in all that time you've never learned the name of the party you've been observing. Astonishing.
Posted by: purple on November 9, 2006 12:11 AMI wrote:
However, after watching the Democrat Party at work for over 25 years...
purple chastised me:
And in all that time you've never learned the name of the party you've been observing. Astonishing.
On the contrary, I've learned several names for that party...
Posted by: ellipsis on November 9, 2006 12:13 AMEllipsis,
This is getting tiring.
1. As I'm sure you know, you saving money is in fact guaranteed by the Federal government (that commie FDR's idea).
2. Yes investing involves risk (which is not difficult to understand and diversify). So does everything else, including having a job. If I get laid off, or my company goes under, or my industry is outsourced overseas, or I become physically unable to work, do I get a refund on all the taxes I've paid working there? That is a rhetorical question. You do get some compensation but I bet that if libertarians had their way you wouldn't even get that much. On average though, the more money you have, the easier it is to make more money. It is like a video game where reaching new levels is slow at first until you get better avatars that allow you to advance faster which in turn allows you to get even better, more powerful avatars and so on. Kinda boring to play if you ask me. But a game you can quit, life - not really.
3. I don't know enough about corporate taxation to discuss it. I do know that companies are often pretty good at avoiding paying them, though. Also the fact that many private individuals and small business owners find it profitable to incorporate tells me that additional taxes are not such a huge burden. Considering the perks you get (limited liability etc), many people find it worth it.
Posted by: MS on November 9, 2006 12:54 AMJane,
With all due respect:
What? WHAT?!? You just figured out that Democrats want to nationalize the pharmaceutical and medical industries? And you just figured this out one day after Election Day?
Whatever your real name is, it's not "Nostradamus".
Sheesh!
Posted by: Erich "You've Got To Be Kidding Me" Schwarz on November 9, 2006 2:10 AM"Why shouldn't it be taxed at the same rate?"
Nothing but Accumulated Capital engenders 'payrolls'. Want more jobs/higher standards of living? Be friendly to Capital, in All of its forms.
Think the "Gov't" has what it takes to provide perpetual 'payrolls'? Think again, the "Gov't", only has what it does because has what it takes to take what you have. The "Gov't" may give you an "Iron Rice Bowl", but the Market, allowed to put in its 'two-cents', is smart enough to add Nickle and breathe some air into the process.
Posted by: Mark E Hoffer on November 9, 2006 2:10 AMSingle taxation:
Your boss pays you money for your services, on which you pay tax. You pay your barber money for his services, on which he pays tax. You've each paid tax on your income.
Double taxation:
You own (a piece of) a business which makes money, on which it pays tax. You transfer some of your money from your business's bank account to your personal bank account ... on which you pay tax? Again?
October is already cooler than average, according to the Nat. Weather Service, if the trend continues, the 52% of US homes that heat with gas will burning more of the stuff, and those that heat with electricity will be demanding more from utilities, more than a few of which generate with natural gas fired powerplants.
Not so sure about that. Generally, natural gas powerplants are turbine generators, used for peaking generation because they can be brought on and off line rather quickly. Baseload is usually coal-fired and, after 20 years of stagnation, the US is finally starting to increase its generation infrastructure at a heavy pace.
Posted by: anony-mouse on November 9, 2006 4:21 AMThe Democrats will be coming for our guns tomorrow, and they’ll leave the bills for the new entitlements for illegal immigrants. They’ll also collect the red meat from our freezers, confiscate SUVs, and take down info so they can start assigning us our new same-sex domestic partners.
The tofu deliveries start Monday, along with mandatory recycling and abortions, and the Bible pickups will commence the following week. Your new copies of The Blind Watchmaker will arrive by union courier in December, and Christmas is canceled until further notice.
The Battered Women’s Cultural Revision Commission is expected to cancel the NFL season before the Super Bowl and to instruct us on cooperative quilting. Net Neutrality begins in January, with all Internet searches directed to Google, and YouTube content will be managed by Daily Kos diarists. Glenn Reynolds will no longer be the Head Blogger In Charge after Jeralyn Merritt takes over, and George Lakoff and Geoff Nunberg will re-write all political speeches.
This is progress, comrades, so embrace it.
Posted by: Richard Bennett on November 9, 2006 7:16 AMBush has to stop the bleeding or else the Democrats will also win the presidency in 2008.
After two years of impeachment hearings, cutting and running from Iraq, tax hikes, and Hillary atop the Dems ticket, people will be begging to elect another GOP president.
Posted by: RMc on November 9, 2006 8:21 AMMark E Hoffer:
"Why shouldn't it be taxed at the same rate?"
Nothing but Accumulated Capital engenders 'payrolls'. Want more jobs/higher standards of living? Be friendly to Capital, in All of its forms.
Think the "Gov't" has what it takes to provide perpetual 'payrolls'? Think again, the "Gov't", only has what it does because has what it takes to take what you have. The "Gov't" may give you an "Iron Rice Bowl", but the Market, allowed to put in its 'two-cents', is smart enough to add Nickle and breathe some air into the process.
It always cracks me "Up" when someone 'stupid' writes a Comment like "this one", with aribitary capital "Letters" and random 'quotation' "Marks", both Singular and plural.
"Thanks" for making 'my' Day.
Posted by: billo riley on November 9, 2006 8:32 AMEllipsis wrote:
"I just thought of a bright spot in this. The DU/Kos/Huffington tinfoil hat brigade will at long last shut up, already about "Diebold" and "rigged elections". If there's any election that the Republicans would surely have rigged, if it was within their power, it's this one."
Sorry, no. I already ran across the soon-to-be official line on this: "The people hated Bush so much that the victory should have been even bigger, but even with the GOP cheating, they *still* lost".
Never underestimate a conspirizoid...
RGT
Posted by: RGT on November 9, 2006 8:34 AMI thought it interesting that Noah quoted Krugman's complaint:
"[I]magine an insurer who offered policies to anyone, with the annual premium set to cover the average person's health care expenses, plus the administrative costs of running the insurance company. Who would sign up?"
IIRC, this is exactly what New York State did in the early 90's - it required insurance companies to offer the same insurance to all individuals at the same price regardless of risk. The result was pretty predictable - everyone paid a whole lot more for insurance. Young, healthy, non-smoking males and females dropped coverage as one would expect. Many people were priced out of the market and dropped coverage. All during a recession.
I also thought it amusing that Noah complained about privacy restrictions on medical records and the absurd result of such rules. I seem to recall it is government regulation, not insurer restrictions (HIPAA), that cause that.
Noah also relates that "just about every doctor" he has spoken to thinks "it's a given that government will have to take over health care". Funny locution. He doesn't mention how many of those doctors WANT government to take over health care.
FWIW, to me universal health insurance would be more like the IRS than the DMV: The coercive power of government interfering in the private lives and decisions of its citizens.
Posted by: Steven Schmitt on November 9, 2006 8:55 AMthe fact that many private individuals and small business owners find it profitable to incorporate tells me that additional taxes are not such a huge burden.
Look a little closer and you'll notice that most of those small businesses are now LLC instead of Inc., meaning they can get "flow-through" taxation and only pay once.
They only incorporate when they get big enought to start selling securities.
Posted by: Rob Lyman on November 9, 2006 9:13 AMIIRC, this is exactly what New York State did in the early 90's - it required insurance companies to offer the same insurance to all individuals at the same price regardless of risk. The result was pretty predictable - everyone paid a whole lot more for insurance. Young, healthy, non-smoking males and females dropped coverage as one would expect. Many people were priced out of the market and dropped coverage. All during a recession.
Exactly so. New York insurers must offer coverage to everyone and at the same price. Consequently, for me, a healthy young adult, the rate would be over $600 a month for an HMO from the one or two companies that still offer individual insurance in this state. If I didn't have insurance from my employer, I could get individual insurance under the Healthy NY program for about $200 a month, but only if my income were below $25,000. The situation is somewhat different but apparently even worse in New Jersey.
Short-term insurance is illegal in NY. People without insurance from work and who aren't poor are basically SOL here.
In California I could start at $42 a month for catastrophic coverage.
Posted by: AT on November 9, 2006 9:25 AMre: "No, no, no! The Will Of The People Has Spoken!"
I was on a call yesterday with a colleague who I normally think of as level-headed in most respects, but I'd never heard her political leanings.
We were discussing travel, and out of the blue she said something about foreign travel being much, much easier now that the GOP got whupped in this election.
I asked her why, and she said (paraphrasing, but not by much):
"Now the rest of the world knows that 'the people' don't support that asshole."
Sigh.
Posted by: pr9000 on November 9, 2006 9:51 AMMark - Did I mention the "Govt" in my posts? No I didn't but keep punching those straw men. As far as capital creating jobs - that's slightly true. Jobs are created by entreprenuers and small businessmen in this country - something I know about as I have started 5 companies and sold two of them to larger publically traded companies.
Have I paid cap gains on my earnings when I have sold various companies? - sure have. No offense but people who inherit/accumulate wealth should be paying at the same rate as those who work for a living. That's really what we are talking about. Paris Hilton should be taxed at the same rate as your plumber.
I have yet to hear how taxing someone at the same rate is a problem other than the silly point "taxing people on cap gains means they aren't going to accumulate capital" which of course is nonsense. Moving back to the rates in the Clinton years COMBINED with a pay as you go budget isn't going to be the end of the world. In fact considering we currently have 140,000 troops in Iraq and another 20,000 in Afghanistan it's probably necessary.
As far owning a business and pulling money out - of course that's a taxable event. Your business (assuming you have set it up properly) is seperate legal entity. It has seperate legal rights and you aren't responsible for it's debts (at least if you have set it up properly).
As far a Noah goes - his wife died of liver cancer. No doubt he feels that the healthcare system is partially responsible. I would like a a little better value out of the healthcare system. My premimiums are $412/month for myself and my wife with a $4,000 deductible which gets us $8,000,000 in lifetime coverage. But really I cannot complain too much - at most I think that price is $50-$75 per month too high which isn't too much.
Posted by: Brian Despain on November 9, 2006 10:03 AMThat's an interesting point about the difference between taxing capital gains and taxing income. It is true that taxing capital gains will result in less available capital. But the same is true of taxing income. The former is simply a bit more direct and visible than the latter. Neither is more or less likely to be invested.
Posted by: Randy on November 9, 2006 10:20 AMI wrote:
"October is already cooler than average, according to the Nat. Weather Service, if the trend continues, the 52% of US homes that heat with gas will burning more of the stuff, and those that heat with electricity will be demanding more from utilities, more than a few of which generate with natural gas fired powerplants."
Anony-mouse replied:
Not so sure about that. Generally, natural gas powerplants are turbine generators, used for peaking generation because they can be brought on and off line rather quickly. Baseload is usually coal-fired and, after 20 years of stagnation, the US is finally starting to increase its generation infrastructure at a heavy pace.
That may be true in your region, but some places get their baseload from natural gas fired plants with a dollop of nuke on top. However, upon reflection, the spike in natgas price last summer due to hot weather was more likely driven by peaking plants than baseload for the midwest & northeast. So that part of the natural gas price equation is not as big a factor as I guesstimated. However I'm still left with over 50% of homes heating with the stuff; if prices jump up, it would be a dandy headline grabber to propose a nice "windfall profits tax" on natgas producers.
As an aside, one of the things France did right was to decide on a standard light water reactor, copied from Westinghouse IIRC, to generate baseload. One design, so operators can be trained in one place and moved around the system. If more baseload is needed, build another identical unit right next to existing ones. They run most of their railroad net on electricity, which would only work in selected parts of the US at best, but of the European countries they probably positioned the best for the future in terms of energy.
Posted by: ellipsis on November 9, 2006 1:48 PMIs your hate for taxes and minimum wage so great you are willing to turn a blind eye to corruption
Eight words: Alcee Hastings, William Jefferson, Article One, Section Five.
Posted by: Warmongering Lunatic on November 9, 2006 1:56 PMTolbert wrote yesterday:
The silver lining. The Democrats will now be emboldened to run Hillary Clinton for President in 08.
Since she's been pulling a solid 40% in every poll of Democrats for a couple of years now, and the Clinton machine still has a lot of control over the national party, it seems to me the nomination is hers to lose.
Surely, even in their most frothing-at-the-mouth moments, nobody expects that ticket to win.
A number of smart people told me a few years ago that New Yorkers were much too intelligent and sophisticated to vote for a carpetbagger whose sole claims to fame were a failed attempt to nationalize health care & a philandering husband who was President. Since Senator Clinton just got re-elected, it seems those smart people were wrong. Given blatant, obvious support by the press corps (check), a huge pile of money to spend on the campaign (check), an extensive party machine ready to do anything to get the White House back (check), no substantial Republican opponent (at this time, check) I don't see another President Clinton as impossible, not in the least.
ellipses
As for your ancestor who lost all that money in the crash of 1906 (thought it was 1907?),
in fact, you can get income tax refunds or deductions from your capital gains against your capital losses.
Your ancestor didn't get that income tax deduction or refund because 100 years ago there wasn't any income tax to get a refund of or deduction for.
Oh, the capital gain tax rate averages 9% because so much of it goes through inheiritance and the stepped up basis deduction. That's 9% of all the capital gains made, of course, not 9% of all the people with capital gains. Some people have more money than others, and then some people have so much money that they wind up paying estate taxes. The sweet spot is between one and four million dollars.
markm,
So does a tax on income. If I get a cost of living raise, my taxes go up, but my standard of living has not.
Posted by: Randy on November 9, 2006 3:34 PMwkwillis wrote:
ellipses
As for your ancestor who lost all that money in the crash of 1906 (thought it was 1907?),
Correct, it was the Panic of '07.
in fact, you can get income tax refunds or deductions from your capital gains against your capital losses.
True. I'm sure some people are still carrying cap losses forward from 2001. Doesn't help below a certain income level, though.
Your ancestor didn't get that income tax deduction or refund because 100 years ago there wasn't any income tax to get a refund of or deduction for.
Yes. That was a rhetorical question.
Oh, the capital gain tax rate averages 9% because so much of it goes through inheiritance and the stepped up basis deduction. That's 9% of all the capital gains made, of course, not 9% of all the people with capital gains. Some people have more money than others, and then some people have so much money that they wind up paying estate taxes. The sweet spot is between one and four million dollars.
All very interesting, but doesn't explain why cap gains tax is a good idea.
Hey gang and Jane if she ever bothers to scroll down this far, I just thought of another great idea we may well see in the next year: Carbon Tax. It's all the rage on the left in the UK, it will punish dem devil-wagon SUV's, it "makes a statement about global warming", it's regressive so we'll have to tinker further with the Earned Income Tax Credit (and slip a few more tax code modifications in as part of the process), it makes the Dept. of Energy look like it's doing something, and will provide lots of posturing & photo ops. Did I miss anything?
Posted by: ellipsis on November 9, 2006 4:48 PMWhy is a cap gains tax a good idea? Good question. But I'm thanking that it is no better or worse an idea than any other kind of tax. They all create perverse incentives of one kind or another. The bottom line is still "getting the most amount of feathers with the least amount of squawking".
Posted by: Randy on November 9, 2006 4:56 PMRangel had some thoughts this am as to his plans:
“It’s not just committees — our influence within the House Democratic caucus will grow enormously,” Mr. Rangel said in an interview.
To that end, he sketched out an expansive federal agenda: Teaming up with Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg on gun control, passing new tax incentives for urban job programs, and redirecting federal money to New York in return for the outsize tax collections that the federal government makes here.
“Mississippi gets more than their fair share back in federal money, but who the hell wants to live in Mississippi?” Mr. Rangel said.
Going to be interesting times.
No one thinks taxes are "good" ellipsis - As far as I am concerned, people should be taxed at the same rates. Why should someone who has enough wealth not to actually work be taxed at lower rate than someone who has to work for a living? Both benefit from the society - both need to pay for the common defense. Why should having enough wealth mean you pay less as a percentage? It seems to me that you should be taxed at the same rate. You keep making the argument I have "prove that caps gains taxes should be equal." It seems to me that you are the one with the case to prove. Why should one person be allowed to contribute less because his method of revenue generation is a multi generation trust?
Posted by: Brian Despain on November 9, 2006 6:07 PMredirecting federal money to New York in return for the outsize tax collections that the federal government makes here
I never understood that argument. The government can redistribute money between income brackets, generations, household types, sexes, races, neighborhoods, cities, industries, etc., but not between states?
Posted by: AT on November 9, 2006 6:09 PMMikeinAppalachia - Well the amount of money that flows from coastal regions such as California to rural Red areas is amazing. I had no idea how much federal money (I call it welfare) these states recieved until I moved to New Mexico, then I was astounded. You can get specific federal grants designed to encourage investment in the area. A friend of mine got a $80,000 USDA grant for starting a microbrewery in town. Now I know where my tax dollars went.
Posted by: Brian Despain on November 9, 2006 6:11 PMBrian Despain wrote:
No one thinks taxes are "good" ellipsis
No one? Not even the people with "Taxes Are The Price We Pay For Civilization" bumper stickers on their Prius's?
- As far as I am concerned, people should be taxed at the same rates. Why should someone who has enough wealth not to actually work be taxed at lower rate than someone who has to work for a living? Both benefit from the society - both need to pay for the common defense. Why should having enough wealth mean you pay less as a percentage? It seems to me that you should be taxed at the same rate.
Fine by me, the flat tax is a heck of a lot easier to administer, with lower overhead, than what we have now. Which is why it doesn't get passed into law. But waaaay up the thread, I suggested that the New Brooms in the Congress just might want to jack up the cap gains tax, in order to make the rich pay their fair share, etc. as part of a broader agenda.
You keep making the argument I have "prove that caps gains taxes should be equal." It seems to me that you are the one with the case to prove.
I don't recall making an argument on this topic, merely asking questions.
Why should one person be allowed to contribute less because his method of revenue generation is a multi generation trust?
Hey, drop by any of the high end rehab resorts & ask a Kennedy, not me.
> the cap gains tax, in order to make the rich pay their fair share, etc. as part of a broader agenda.
What is their "fair share"? Right now, they pay for almost everything but social security and medicare and even there they subsidize the poor.
What fraction of govt expenditures should be paid for by the top 1%, 5%, 10%, 20%?
Posted by: Andy Freeman on November 9, 2006 8:15 PMA number of smart people told me a few years ago that New Yorkers were much too intelligent and sophisticated to vote for a carpetbagger whose sole claims to fame were a failed attempt to nationalize health care & a philandering husband who was President. Since Senator Clinton just got re-elected, it seems those smart people were wrong.
I'm not sure who those "smart people" were, but the pundits (and myself) were almost totally unsurprised that a high-profile Democrat, married to a then immensely popular Democratic President, would win in one of the bluest states in America. There's a reason Clinton picked New York to do her carpetbagging in -- it was the safest bet for election.
Posted by: Dan on November 9, 2006 8:19 PMWell the amount of money that flows from coastal regions such as California to rural Red areas is amazing. I had no idea how much federal money (I call it welfare) these states recieved until I moved to New Mexico, then I was astounded.
It is worth noting that while the flow of money IS from "blue states" to "red states", it is still primarily from "red voters" to a mix of red and blue voters.
Remember, the upper income quintile pays almost all of the income tax -- and even in California, that quintile is strongly Republican.
Posted by: Dan on November 9, 2006 8:21 PMBrian Despain, did you have to move all the way to Mexico(*) to find out that the US federal government hands out grants like a drunken sailor? You don't even want to start asking around Sandia Labs about the 8(a) setasides with one Certified Minority behind a desk while half a dozen gringos do the actual work in a back room.
(*)Either you get this little joke or you don't, I won't explain it.
Posted by: ellipsis on November 9, 2006 8:37 PM
Dan replied to me:
I'm not sure who those "smart people" were, but the pundits (and myself) were almost totally unsurprised that a high-profile Democrat, married to a then immensely popular Democratic President, would win in one of the bluest states in America. There's a reason Clinton picked New York to do her carpetbagging in -- it was the safest bet for election.
Hey, they told me they were smart, and they were convinced that only rubes, hicks and socialites would be impressed by Hillary! and her campaign. What the heck do I know, I live so far West of the Hudson I can't even see it...
Posted by: ellipsis on November 9, 2006 8:42 PM"I just thought of a bright spot in this. The DU/Kos/Huffington tinfoil hat brigade will at long last shut up, already about "Diebold" and "rigged elections". If there's any election that the Republicans would surely have rigged, if it was within their power, it's this one."
Given how the Republicans seem to have lost just about every *really* close race in this election, I'm amazed that we haven't started hearing about Democrat hackers throwing the election. It's got to be really painful to have lost so much by so little. Maybe Diebold is *pretending* to be Republican-leaning, but is really part of the Democrat conspiracy :-)
Posted by: Tom West on November 9, 2006 8:44 PM"What is their "fair share"? Right now, they pay for almost everything but social security and medicare and even there they subsidize the poor."
But they pay less as percentage of income than people whose primary meaning of generation of income. If you have a reasonable sized investment portfolio you can typically manage your cap gains exposure to any where from 8 - 18%. So in other words the question is "Should a person because of the virtue of their wealth pay less as a percentage of income than those who work?"
Furthermore it's pretty apparent that the tax cuts from the administration came at the expense of people who pay payroll taxes. Looking at the percentage of the government paid for by th upper 1% etc isn't a meaningful exercise. You need to look at the most meaningful figure - tax burden/income. If the percentage is higher for those who rely on payroll, how caqn you argue it's fair. Ellipsis' flat tax proposal seems a better solution. Although the shot at the Kennedys seems uncalled for and rather uncivil. I am sure we can find examples on both sides of the aisle of drug addicts (Rush Limbaugh comes to mind).
"Remember, the upper income quintile pays almost all of the income tax -- and even in California, that quintile is strongly Republican."
I just don't think that's accurate or at the very least you are going to need more backup than your simple bald assertion. Any surveys/demographic would be helpful or maybe just knowing what numbers you have in mind (60/40 Republican/Democrat) might work.
Posted by: Brian Despain on November 9, 2006 8:44 PM"Brian Despain, did you have to move all the way to Mexico(*) to find out that the US federal government hands out grants like a drunken sailor? You don't even want to start asking around Sandia Labs about the 8(a) setasides with one Certified Minority behind a desk while half a dozen gringos do the actual work in a back room."
Well I guess so. I am so naive sometimes it's amazing. One of my companies I started was ecommerce professional services - we stayed away from government contracts because they seemed like a real pain. My friend showed me his application that netted him the $80,000. I was aghast. I then realized I missed a lot of money from the government.
I drove to Indiana to visit my parents about 8 months ago. While there I got pulled over and the local law enforcement asked to see my passpoard and visa. I had to explain that we were indeed part of the US.
Posted by: Brian Despain on November 9, 2006 8:50 PMYou need to look at the most meaningful figure - tax burden/income. If the percentage is higher for those who rely on payroll, how caqn you argue it's fair.
I might try; however, I don't need to, since your predicate isn't true.
As for the idea of taxing capital gains as ordinary income, it's problematical under a progressive tax system because of its unusual potential for distorting economic behavior: capital gains are taxed when they're realized, and people usually have a lot of discretion over when that happens. To take the most salient example, workers approaching retirement would be encouraged to stay fully invested in stocks (a thing most of them shouldn't be doing) in order to realize their gains once they've retired and moved into a lower bracket.
If we had a flat-marginal-rate income tax, I'd be all for taxing capital gains like other income-- provided they're indexed for inflation.
Posted by: Paul Zrimsek on November 9, 2006 10:01 PMQuote by Brian Despain:
"Remember, the upper income quintile pays almost all of the income tax -- and even in California, that quintile is strongly Republican."
I just don't think that's accurate or at the very least you are going to need more backup than your simple bald assertion. Any surveys/demographic would be helpful or maybe just knowing what numbers you have in mind (60/40 Republican/Democrat) might work.
Here's a link you should research:
http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6
Time taken to research: 1 minute.
Posted by: Jeff R. on November 9, 2006 10:52 PMThanx Jeff - This tells me absolutely nothing. The big surprise - people who make more money pay more tax! The graphs tell us nothing about those people's political affiliations. Furthermore the debate here is the percentage of tax to income. Sure under the current structure the higher income brackets pay a large percentage
I was looking for your support on you the upper quintile being Republican.
Wow Paul - you linked to enormous page at the CBO and said with quite a flourish "your predicate isn't true." Furthermore the report supports my argument - Did you read all of it? (maybe you could point to the part that disproves my predicate?) From the report on the report on capital gains
"After May 6, 2003, 5 percent for taxpayers in the 15 percent bracket or below--and 0 in 2008; 15 percent for other taxpayers (10 percent; 20 percent)"
Here's on the rate on dividends,
" 5 percent for taxpayers in the 15 percent bracket or below--and 0 in 2008; 15 percent for other taxpayers (Ordinary rates)"
So capital gains is taxed currently at every bracket but the 15 percent at 15%. So is your point that the rich bear greater tax liabilities? Please indicate what you are using in that report as it's long and I don't really feel like digging through it to try to figure out what you mean.
Posted by: Brian Despain on November 9, 2006 11:38 PMIncomplete sentence - "Sure under the current structure the higher income brackets pay a large percentage of the federal tax burden." The real question is the ratio of tax/income/cap gains.
Look if you just live by investments such as the sale of stocks or securities you are taxed at 15% under the current system. Looking at the total taxes paid and saying see the rich pay most of them is silly because you lack the context of understanding the tax burden relative to an individual's income.
Posted by: Brian Despain on November 9, 2006 11:43 PMFrom Table 2, first group ("Total Effective Federal Tax Rate"):
2006
Lowest Quintile 5.6
Second Quintile 12.1
Middle Quintile 15.7
Fourth Quintile 19.8
Highest Quintile 26.5
If tax burden/income isn't "the most meaningful figure" after all, feel free to ignore the data.
Posted by: Paul Zrimsek on November 10, 2006 12:07 AMMaybe Diebold is *pretending* to be Republican-leaning, but is really part of the Democrat conspiracy
Think you could spread that meme around a little more? Then maybe a few more Republicans will warm up to the idea of a paper trail for elections.
Posted by: Ryan on November 10, 2006 2:09 AM"redirecting federal money to New York in return for the outsize tax collections that the federal government makes here"
If Rangel et al. think the federal government is sending too much money from rich states to poor states, they should be pushing to cut federal taxes (and spending) so states can raise their taxes. The way to keep New York's tax money inside New York is to send it to Albany, not Washington.
Posted by: Bill Woods on November 10, 2006 2:50 AMCap gains taxes should be be lower than wage taxes because most of the "gains" are due to inflation. Using interest to illustrate the point, if you got 4% interest, had 3% inflation, and were in the 28% bracket, then you got a return of -0.12% after inflation and taxes. If you hold a stock for many years, most of your "gain" is inflationary.
Posted by: shamus on November 10, 2006 6:59 AMTaxes on wages don't tax any kind of inflationary gain. Money loses purchasing power over time. Since no time elapses between between the payment of wages and the payment of wage taxes, there is no inflationary element to this transaction.
Posted by: shamus on November 10, 2006 7:07 AMWell that graph is tax burden/income group which is isn't what I am looking for I am looking for the percentage a person pay of their income - not the fact that the upper two quintiles pay most of the tax burden - that's not surprising nor particularly meaningful. the question is how much of that taxpayer is paying a proportion of income. Furthermore that graph is an INCOME tax rate - if the majority of your money flows from cap gains or dividends you are taxed at 15%. Thanx for pointing out what you were using in that PDF - it's rather large. What I find amazing is that we are pretty close to flat tax right now. Any halfway decent tax avoidance strategy can on individual basis negate that and significantly drop your tax burden.
Posted by: Brian Despain on November 10, 2006 9:25 AMShamus,
Just winging it here, but let's say the cost of living goes up by 3%. My boss gives me a cost of living raise of 3%. But the government takes 15% of the 3% leaving me with a .45% reduction in my real standard of living. I've just been taxed for inflation.
But I'm willing to admit that I could be missing something here. Perhaps you could point it out.
Posted by: Randy on November 10, 2006 9:51 AMMaybe Diebold is *pretending* to be Republican-leaning, but is really part of the Democrat conspiracy
More likely, Diebold is part of the Illuminati, and we all know the Illuminati always wins elections...
Ryan wrote:
Think you could spread that meme around a little more? Then maybe a few more Republicans will warm up to the idea of a paper trail for elections.
I see quite a few Republicans that have no problem with a paper trail. What they don't seem to care for is a paper trail for "I'm not registered and don't have any ID and have to read my name off of a 3x5 card but let me vote anyway" voters. Dunno why, must be bigoted narrow-mindedness.
Posted by: ellipsis on November 10, 2006 10:17 AMTO: Jane Galt
RE: Root Cause
Yeah. It's already happening...."Meet the 'new' boss. Same as the 'old' boss."
The problem is that the apparatchik in BOTH parties has become identical in their motivations and modius operandi.
As one friend of mine calls them...Demicans and Republicrats. All, same-same.
Third parties MIGHT work. But they take a LONG time to get their act together. And the current lot are not doing a very good job of even starting, in my honest opinion.
A better way would be for MORE people to get ACTIVELY involved in one of the existing parties and seize control.
Surely, Libertarians who are into Sex, Drugs and Rock & Roll could go for the Demicrats. While those who favor the Bill of Rights could go for the Republicans.
Betwixt the two, we COULD regain control of these parties from the current lot of money-grabbers who ARE in control. And therein would be a blessing in and of itself.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The American Republic will endure until Congress realizes it can bribe the people with their own money. -- Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 1831]
P.S. Kill your television and GET INVOLVED in local politics. It (1) gets you off the couch and into the public, (2) improves the way local government works and (3) is MUCH more entertaining while it improves your vocabulary and mental capacities.
Posted by: Chuck Pelto on November 10, 2006 10:55 AMTax debates are always lots of fun, but in my simplistic view they always boil down to a few really simple points
1) Government needs to raise $X Dollars to run
2) It should do so in a way that is minimially distortionary to the economy (some taxes like a Carbon tax may create a positive distortion)
3) It should do so in a way that minimially penalizes future GDP growth
There are infintely many strategies to go about doing this (Carbon Tax, Income Tax, Corporate Tax, Etc..), but I think if you honestly look at Capital Gains taxes they would not be part of the optimal solution.
Cap Gains taxes encourage people to consume rather than save, harming future growth (sure enterpeneurs drive growth, but you can't build businesses without money).
Cap Gains taxes also creates an entire industry of lawyers and accountants devoted to avoiding the tax rather than value-generating activities. I know this for a fact working at an investment company.
Cap Gains taxes also create an incentive to hold on to investments longer than may be optimal in order to qualify for long-term status and get a reduced rate.
Hang on a minute. Why should libertarians be upset about socializing medicine? Isn't this what Arnold Kling proposed? Oh, except you're not actually going to get the school choice he wanted in return.
Libertarianism is a wonderful governing philiosophy -- IN THEORY. In practice, government wins every time.
Posted by: Well, duh... on November 10, 2006 11:03 AMBrian Despain-I am somewhat aware that the amounts of federal spending in various states is not proportional to the federal tax collected there. I was just posting Rangle's remarks re Jane's opening as to "buyer's remorse". Re my "Name"-I'm all for it!
Posted by: MikeinAppalachia on November 10, 2006 11:18 AMYou get no sympathy from me.
Syria, Iran, Chavez, and the Palestinians, meanwhile, *are* all celebrating. Congratulations on making so many dictators & thugs happy. A century from now, your choice will be infamous.
Posted by: Bostonian on November 10, 2006 11:33 AM> "What is their "fair share"? Right now, they pay for almost everything but social security and medicare and even there they subsidize the poor."
> But they pay less as percentage of income than people whose primary meaning of generation of income.
So?
>"Should a person because of the virtue of their wealth pay less as a percentage of income than those who work?"
Yup, they just got hit by the wealth fairy. No - they created something of lasting value, not ephemeral (like labor).
The other interesting thing about them is that they employ people - wage earners don't.
So, they pay everyone else's way AND they provide employment, and some folks don't think that that's enough.
I note that my "what fraction of the tax burden should they bear" question went unanswered. Instead, we got "more".
I'll ask a different question - what fraction of the tax burden should payroll earners pay? How about the poor and middle class? (Please define both.)
And, if you say that the rich should pay more because they exploit, I'm going to point out that the same is true of blue states, so transfer payments to red states should be increased.
". . . in practice government wins every time." Well, yeah, if I had the legal right to go around waving a gun at anyone I felt like intimidating and getting them to do whatever I wanted them to do--including giving me as much of their money as I wanted to take--my life would be pretty sweet, too.
Posted by: Bilwick on November 10, 2006 11:42 AMOne day into it and you've fallen off the turnip truck. No surprise.
Posted by: Xixi on November 10, 2006 11:43 AMAll one had to do is look at who makes up the Democratic leadership and review their statements and policies to know what would happen if they got in a position of power.
Sorry but my sympathy factor is rather low.
Posted by: Nahanni on November 10, 2006 11:47 AMMan; "schadenfreude" doesn't begin to describe the satisfaction that I'm going to wring out of watching your misery for the next two years.
We're talking justice.
You're going to richly deserve it.
A question for all the people attacking Jane for her alleged buyer's remorse:
Did she ever say she wanted Democrats to win because it would advance her beliefs?
No, she said she had personal reasons for wanting a Democratic senate, and that she voted for Hillary Clinton, which does not equate to supporting the full Democratic project given the lack of a viable choice. As far as I can tell, she never endorsed the Democrats, and kept up a healthy criticism of them throughout the campaign.
It's not her buyer's remorse. She knew what she was doing, and it's not the same thing others may have done.
Although the exit polls show that the votes of disaffected libertarians and conservatives had very little to do with the Democratic sweep. It was Democrats and moderates in competitive districts coming home or swinging to the Democrats, leavened with a healthy dose of scandal in competitive seats.
Conservatives, in fact, don't determine the outcome of every election by showing up or failing to show up. Y'all came out in big numbers this week. So did everyone else.
Posted by: Brittain33 on November 10, 2006 11:56 AMSyria, Iran, Chavez, and the Palestinians, meanwhile, *are* all celebrating. Congratulations on making so many dictators & thugs happy. A century from now, your choice will be infamous.
If anything, this thread is conclusive proof that Jane's Law is alive and well.
Posted by: Brittain33 on November 10, 2006 11:57 AMI see quite a few Republicans that have no problem with a paper trail. What they don't seem to care for is a paper trail for "I'm not registered and don't have any ID and have to read my name off of a 3x5 card but let me vote anyway" voters.
Do you have any examples of unregistered voters who don't know their own names attempting to vote? If not, perhaps you could give an example from the real world of just what it is that angers you so.
Posted by: purple on November 10, 2006 12:00 PMLibertine sectarianism--a juvenile disorder.
It really is: the libertines haven't grown up since the 60's. They seem to imagine that they can win elections by projecting the "To the gas chamber--go!" message. Let people believe that we will have them selling apples on streetcorners and living in cardboard shacks. That's a plan!
Children , children, the world we live in the world we live in. Technology necessitates that government stimulate and even generate a kind of demand for labor. The task of governance is to make this pseudo-demand as rational as possible. This is done by getting the money as far down the chain of subsidiarity as practicable, which we had been doing by tax cuts and creeping privatization.
The childisn fools have set things back by years by their infantile petulance--pfui!
Posted by: Lou Gots on November 10, 2006 12:08 PMI don't know what Jane's law is.
I posted just a simple observation of the facts. Ahmadinehad, for one, said Tuesday was "a clear victory for *Iran*" [emphasis added]
Posted by: Bostonian on November 10, 2006 12:14 PM"Who ever gets to vote for
what they want? Did you?"
I sure did. I voted for Mark Sanford for Governor-- exactly what I wanted.
I am looking for the percentage a person pay of their income
One last try before I give up: In what way does what you're looking for differ from the effective tax rate?
Posted by: Paul Zrimsek on November 10, 2006 1:00 PMWhy shouldn't capital gains be taxed the same as ordinary income?
Simple - money has a time value. In other words $100 a year from now is worth less than $100 today. If the discount rate is 2.5 percent and someone invests now and only gets a 2.5 percent return they've only broken even. If that gain is taxed as ordinary income the investor has lost money. There are also social benefits to saving and investing as opposed to consumption as well - investing allows companies to expand, thereby creating more jobs and expanding the tax base, so taxing capital gains (or interest) at lower rates encourages that.
Posted by: Jim D on November 10, 2006 1:19 PMBrian:
"Thorley - the no negotiation part of Medicare Part D has always bothered me. Any company that doesn't use it's buying power to negotiate is leaving money on the table. It's a principle that works for WalMart and it should work for the US goverment but like most things it's in the excution that things will get fouled up."
You may like this or you may not, but I think you ought to realize that "negotiation" implies the imposition of a government formulary.
Medicare: "You nor charge $1000/patient for your cancer drug. We would like to pay $500.
Drug company: "We don't want to reduce our price. What's the 'or else'?"
Medicare: [fill in the blank]
The government has to have a credible threat to stop buying a particular drug for this to work. That's fine for generics, but for drugs still on patent it amounts to a formulary.
-dk
Actually, the win by Democrats this week makes it more likely that a Republican will be elected as President in 2008. Because of what happened during the last few years, for the foreseeable future, Americans will stay with the divided Government model. In 2008, the Senate could go back into the R column, if judicial activism continues to raise its ugly head and Democrats play politics with the confirmation process for judicial appointees. But, Americans voted for divided Government on Tuesday and will probably stick with it for a while and keep the House in the hands of the Democrats. Of course, that assumes that the Democrats don't screw things up in the next two years. If that happens and the President's foreign policies are vindicated by positive results, the electorate could simply toss them out again. If the Democrats want to share power, they will have to produce tangible results. This election contained no evidence of a mandate for the Democrats or their liberal tendencies. If the Democrats don't moderate their approach, they will simply set themselves up for a losing hand in the future.
With regard to Bush caving to everything that the Democrats want in the next two years, I just don't see that happening. After the smoke clears, Bush will remain what he has always been. He will not support attempts to cut and run in Iraq. He will continue to nominate constitutional constructionists to fill Federal judicial vacancies. He will veto any bills that aim to eliminate tax reductions or that propose new taxes. He will fight for reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind program. He will support legislation that provides a common-sense approach to comprehensive immigration reform. He will attempt to work with the Democrats on meaningful cost-cutting reforms to entitlement programs, but will undoubtedly be rebuffed by them in this effort. He will veto budget-busting proposals to further expand entitlement programs (some of you would say that the Medicare Drug Program was such a proposal, but you don't say what we should have done to help current retirees in their uphill battle to pay for the drugs that they need). In short, he will continue to be what he has always been and life will go on.
My best guess for the next two years is that Congress will be gridlocked and be incapable of passing any meaning new legislation. The only meaningful things happening will be what Bush is able to do on the Foreign policy front. I wish him well in this endeavor. We really can't afford lack of progress in this key area. Speaker Pelosi will try to interject herself as an ersatz commander-in-chief, but will be rebuffed by Bush in all these attempts. He will never cede power to anyone in Congress on this key aspect of his job.
Posted by: Darrell on November 10, 2006 1:27 PMLooks like "Jane Galt" really threw some sand into the gears of the state, huh?
At least with the Republicans, we just got bumbling technocracy and petty corruption, not authoritarian utopianism and a Euro-style nanny state.
At best, we will get Clintonian small-bore micromanagement of our lives through dumb tax incentives, while average tax rates on productive stuff, like working and investing, go up.
Thanks for doing your part for "change". At least you have a Galt's Gulch to hide out in; the rest of us have to live under these numbskulls.
Posted by: The True Wheel on November 10, 2006 1:31 PMOf course the Democratic congress will pursue its liberal/socialist agenda. We libertarians certainly knew that going in. Our logic was simple-since we were not going to get a Libertarain majority, gridlock was the best we could hope for. With a Republican president for 2 more years, we needed at least one house Democratic to slow down the rush to a police state.
We should be able to count on Bush to veto the worst stuff but no guarantee on that. He might trade off a signature on some socialist fiasco in exchange for NSA wiretapping or some such plan.
We won't be safe until there is a Libertarian majority.
Posted by: Mike4Freedom on November 10, 2006 1:32 PM"Ridiculous" said Mark, "pisses me off."
Amen, amen, amen.
Electing democrats will slow down the rush to a police state? What short memory. Remember Waco? Ruby Ridge?
Any libertarian who votes for a democrat has betrayed his principles. Hang your heads in shame.
Sorry Jane, you get no sympathy from me. We already know that in one generation Europe will be Muslim (read Mark Steyn’s America Alone) and thanks to Jane’s vote, America will be so in 2 to 3 generations. Once Muslims are a majority, you can kiss the Constitution good-bye, because the primary law in Islam is sha’ria law. In countries that follow sha’ria law, the only education boys get is rote memorization of the Qu’ran (girls don’t go to school – they aren’t worthy), homosexual men are hanged, uppity women are stoned. I wonder how they treat lesbians – do they hang them or stone them or both? No other religions are tolerated; churches and temples cannot be built. But I don’t care anymore. I’ll be dead before it happens and I have three sons. They will be able to beat their wives into submission. The Qu’ran says they can. Thanks, Jane.
Posted by: Massachusetts Republican Mom on November 10, 2006 1:57 PMSo Jane, it sounds like you saying that you traded the evil that you did know, for the evil that you should've known?
I think this is a great example of the uselessness or protest votes.
I love that Brian could think that the top quintile paid only 26% of the tax burden! The top quintile's share of all federal taxes was 65% in 2003, and higher in subsequent years.
Posted by: "Mindles H. Dreck" on November 10, 2006 2:04 PMActually Mindles - I don't believe that all. I am well aware that the top quintile pays the lions share of taxes. But keep punching that straw man. You will develop quite a jab that way.
Posted by: Brian Despain on November 10, 2006 2:28 PMI wrote:
I see quite a few Republicans that have no problem with a paper trail. What they don't seem to care for is a paper trail for "I'm not registered and don't have any ID and have to read my name off of a 3x5 card but let me vote anyway" voters.
Purple enquired:
Do you have any examples of unregistered voters who don't know their own names attempting to vote?
Only from anecdotes. I also have anecdotes of dead people voting, and people whose primary residence consisted of a vacant lot or parking garage voting, precincts turning in more votes for a particular party than there were registered voters, voting machines rigged to not record the votes for a particular candidate, and so forth. Nothing special, just garden variety vote fraud...
If not, perhaps you could give an example from the real world of just what it is that angers you so.
Dear, me, someone confused ironic amusement with anger. So what is it about fraudulent voting & ballot-rigging you find so attractive?
So Dick your argument is that the fact that the large government entity is negotiating is the problem? If Wal-Mart negotiates a better rate on precription drugs because of it enormous buying power - this is ok right? What about a simply best price supplier clause for Medicare? Under the current regime even this isn't allowed. Heck I would be happy with that and then count on WalMart's supply chain management and buying power to drive down prices.
Massachusetts Mom, I'm a Texas dad and I feel just like you feel. Like I've been working on a book for 50 years and suddenly the dog jumped up and ate the manuscript. Feh, as feh as feh can get. Don't know whether to give a damn anymore or just go fishin.
Posted by: buddy larsen on November 10, 2006 2:39 PMjudson on November 8, 2006 2:33 PM,
Do you think electing Democrats will stop the jihad?
Are you one of those Dec. 1939 kind of folks? i.e. phoney war.
Posted by: M. Simon on November 10, 2006 2:48 PMM. Simon wrote:
Do you think electing Democrats will stop the jihad?
Dear, me, there isn't any jihad except, of course, for inner struggle. Ibriham Hooper said so, it must be true. Therefore, electing Democrats can only be a good thing..
Are you one of those Dec. 1939 kind of folks? i.e. phoney war.
There is no war, except for the one BushHitlerChimpMonkey started against the Iraqi people in order to steal their oil for Halliburton and Dick Cheney's bank account. Hey, did you know Dick Cheney has a lesbian daughter? Huh? Didja? Didja? And don't you think it's just awful the way the Rethuglicans keep bringing people's personal lives into politics, too?
Whew. Should I take a break from reading Huffington's website?
Posted by: ellipsis on November 10, 2006 2:55 PMPaul provides effective tax rates as follows:
"2006
Lowest Quintile 5.6
Second Quintile 12.1
Middle Quintile 15.7
Fourth Quintile 19.8
Highest Quintile 26.5"
Brian responds:
"Well that graph is tax burden/income group which is isn't what I am looking for I am looking for the percentage a person pay of their income - not the fact that the upper two quintiles pay most of the tax burden - that's not surprising nor particularly meaningful. the question is how much of that taxpayer is paying a proportion of income. "
Nice try. Toothpaste's out of the tube.
Posted by: "Mindles H. Dreck" on November 10, 2006 2:55 PMAs far as vote fraud, fixed judges, and your sundry donkey specialities, don't forget that the dozens of extremely dangerous Clinton administration scandals are now, since election day, officially tossed down the memory hole.
With the Clintons back in power, the decks are now clear for another, better-executed, regime of same.
Only this time, their opponents are running out of steam, beginning to resign to the inevitable brave new world. Gresham's Law, writ large.
Posted by: buddy larsen on November 10, 2006 2:57 PM"I note that my "what fraction of the tax burden should they bear" question went unanswered. Instead, we got "more"."
Nope - that's not what I said. Perhaps you can join Mindles at the Straw Man Gym. I don't approach the problem from what percentage of tax burden people should bear (this is a strange approach that has gotten popular because it hides the fact that people who live off investments such as a inheritance are taxed at a lower rate). I approach that people make their entire living on investments should at the same rate because they derive a great deal of benefit from the society. I am arguing for a flat tax here and instead I hear arguments how changing the capital gains tax to reflect it is the end of capitalism or how capital won't be available for investment. It's neither and people are making disengenous arguments to claim so.
Posted by: Brian Despain on November 10, 2006 3:00 PMChuck Pelto on November 10, 2006 10:53 AM,
Here is one "Sex, Drugs, and Rock 'n Roll" kind of libertarian guy who voted straight Republican.
Why? Well the Rs tend to purge their crooks. The Democrats elevate them to positions of power. Not true in all cases of course but the trends are unmistakeable.
And then there is the problem of standing with our allies the Iraqis.
Posted by: M. Simon on November 10, 2006 3:04 PMMindles I will freely admit I confused that graph with another. Iwas looking at several as my post clearly states
"the upper two quintiles pay most of the tax burden - that's not surprising nor particularly meaningful. the question is how much of that taxpayer is paying a proportion of income."
And you show me a tax payer that is paying 25% of his income in the upper quintile and I will show you a guy that should FIRE his accountant.
Posted by: Brian Despain on November 10, 2006 3:05 PMellipsis on November 10, 2006 2:55 PM,
Thanks for reading the HufPo so I don't have to.
Although I must admit a fondness for DU. It's a sickness. LOL
Posted by: M. Simon on November 10, 2006 3:08 PMAnd you show me a tax payer that is paying 25% of his income in the upper quintile and I will show you a guy that should FIRE his accountant.
Any single taxpayer earning over $80,000 without deductions pays that. If you know how I can reduce that without marriage or kids or homeownership, please please please tell me.
Posted by: AT on November 10, 2006 3:20 PMYou don't own a home? You don't have any deductions? No offense but why? Owning a home is the first step."If you know how I can reduce that without marriage or kids or homeownership,"
I am not sure how helpful my advice can be since you haven't taken the obvious home ownership step. You live in New York or someplace where home ownership is impossible on $80,000 per year?
Posted by: Brian Despain on November 10, 2006 3:27 PMI am not sure how helpful my advice can be since you haven't taken the obvious home ownership step. You live in New York or someplace where home ownership is impossible on $80,000 per year?
Yes.
Actually, that would be California, Florida, and most of the Northeast now.
Posted by: AT on November 10, 2006 3:28 PMM. Simon write:
Thanks for reading the HufPo so I don't have to.
Well, I can only take so much of it, so there may be some truly deep, Socratic dialogue that I am missing...
Although I must admit a fondness for DU. It's a sickness. LOL
If the SAT's still had an analogies section, we could ask this question be included:
"Democratic Underground is to Huffington Post as
a. Blow on the head is to kick in the shins.
b. Dead skunk under the house is to shrimp shells behind the fridge.
c. Drunken college party is to cocktails at Lennie Bernsteins.
d. Crack cocaine is to paint thinner in a brown paper sack."
Scoring would be easy...
Posted by M. Simon at
OK, truce.
"And you show me a tax payer that is paying 25% of his income in the upper quintile and I will show you a guy that should FIRE his accountant."
Exhibit 1 - me. Most of my income is earned. I have a mortgage, make substantial charitable donations and take full advantage of 401k plans and flexible spending plans.
Looking at my preparation worksheet:
Federal % of AGI - 24.9%
Federal % of income after deductions - 29.6%
(not including social security and Medicare)
Including state taxes more like 32/36
There's very little one (or one's accountant) can do when 90% of income is earned.
It's only the trust fundies who get most of their income from munis and dividends who can swing a much lower effective rate. I believe Theresa Kerry is a case in point. See Wikipedia:
"Teresa Heinz has declined to disclose her personal tax returns, citing family trusts and privacy. She is estimated to be worth between $750 million and $1.2 billion. According to her most recently released income tax of 2003, the Kerry and Heinz paid an effective federal income tax rate of 12%. Most of her income was derived from tax free municipal bonds, which explains the low rate."
I am most certainly not complaining, just pointing out that lots of folks pay those percentages and can't avoid it. After all, the stats compiled and presented above are the average tax liability for the top quintiles' tax returns divided by their average income.....unless you think someone is fudging the figures.
Posted by: "Mindles H. Dreck" on November 10, 2006 3:29 PMYou are quite correct - relying on earned income is a tough row to hoe and it proves my point - there is a trust fund gap!
Ok you seem my point and now I see yours. Earned income is taxed a higher than income derived from other sources. I am sure that Senator Mushmouth's wife pays her tax which under the current regime is too little relative to someone like Mindles. I know no one in the billion dollar range personally but I know quite a few whose networth ranges 10 million to roughly 80 million (all self made) benefit quite a bit from our society and their own hard labor. The question is do you think Teresa Heinz is fairly or unfairly taxed?
AT - California might become affordable again very soon ;-). I have the advantage of moving to a place where the cost of living is lower and my physical location doesn't matter too much - Skype, and ICQ are my friends.
Posted by: Brian Despain on November 10, 2006 3:41 PMI am also a top quintile earner and pay more than 25% of my income in taxes. My wife is a lawery and I work at a hedge fund. Basically all of our income is derived from salaries, I also take advantage of IRA's and a 401(k).
We rent a house
My wife has some debt from Law School and College
How exactly should I avoid paying taxes? This would be hugely valuable to me.
Brian, you seem to be under the misimpression that most rich people get most of their income from capital. This is not true. Even the very, very rich collect most of their income as wages; Arnold Schwarzenegger pays over 25% of his considerable income just in Federal Income Taxes.
Posted by: Jane Galt on November 10, 2006 3:59 PMYou work at a hedge fund and you use the terms "avoid paying taxes." There are some great tax reduction strategies out there. Buying a home is a good first start. If you are an upper quintile earner and you don't own a home that's appropriate place to start - please note according to this
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/Tfdb/TFTemplate.cfm?DocID=446&Topic2id=20&Topic3id=22
if you are an upper quintile earner we are talking about a minimum of $180,000 pre tax in earned income.
I hate to say this but relying on salaries isn't the way to go. My point the entire time has been is that labor is disproportionally taxed relative to a trust fund. My advice - start a business - and position it for sale to a larger entity. I am not financial advisor at all. But relying on a salary as opposed is a sure path to being constantly taxed.
Posted by: Brian Despain on November 10, 2006 4:06 PMMindles, don't buy into their terminology. ALL of your income is "earned". Call it "labor", or "wage" or "salary" income. Don't accept that the only "earned" form of income is that which comes from labor.
This entire stigmatization of non-labor income is based upon a ridiculous fallacy. Guess what, folks -- the person who delays his consumption is doing everyone a HUGE favor, and the premium on present funds is a manifestation of this. What is this obsession with making sure everyone draws only labor income for every living day of his life? Is it so evil for someone to want to work twice as much one year and none the next?
The mind of a liberal...
Posted by: Person on November 10, 2006 4:08 PMNo Jane I am not under that impression at all. Paying yourself a wage from your own company is usually a good idea. Jane as far as living on capital - I know quite a few people who do just that.
BSD
Posted by: Brian Despain on November 10, 2006 4:11 PMNice troll there Person. Perhaps you too can join the Straw Man Gym. So Paris Hilton and the income from her 37 million dollar inheritance shouldn't be taxed? So Teresa Heinz shouldn't be taxed? I can assure you I have no obsession that everyone should be forced to work. Where on earth did you get this? I am merely point out that taxation currently penalizes wage income over investment income. To my mind they should be taxed equally preferably at some rate lower than the current wage income is taxed now.
I love the "Mind of a liberal" comment. As though I am some poor confused person who doesn't know anything. I have always posted under my real name here and always have. Much of what I have done is a matter of public record at the SEC when I sold my last company to VA Linux. Nice troll though.
Posted by: Brian Despain on November 10, 2006 4:23 PMI think the Dems are gong to be so grateful for the libertarian support (especially Bill quicks), that they will amend their spending ways and adopt limited government policies.
Its a no-brainer.
I also believe that if I can get to the end of the rainbow I'll find a pot of gold.
c'mon, could happen.
Posted by: lonetown on November 10, 2006 4:48 PMBrian, I wonder how USA ranks, globally, on capital-gains tax-rates?
Posted by: buddy larsen on November 10, 2006 4:48 PMArnold Schwarzenegger pays over 25% of his considerable income just in Federal Income Taxes.
That's all? He should pay more (and he will).
Posted by: martin h on November 10, 2006 4:48 PMBrian,
Well currently I am working at a temporary position (the fund I work at has a training program for new managers ), at the conclusion of this program in a year or so we will almost surely move.
Given that I won't be around for more than 2 years, I don't want to incur the costs of buying a house without the favorable treatment of Capital Gains Tax for long-term home owners.
So buying a house is out.
As for starting a business, if everything goes well I will be a fund manager eventually. This will provide a very good income but will not create the opportunity for sale to a large entity.
It is great that you were able to create and sell a business at a large profit, but that is just not an option for many people out there.
Lanny
Posted by: lannychiu on November 10, 2006 4:49 PM>> I note that my "what fraction of the tax burden should they bear" question went unanswered.
> Nope - that's not what I said.
Really? Where was the question answered? The closest that I saw to an answer was
> I don't approach the problem from what percentage of tax burden people should bear
Fraction of income only speaks to ability. While ability to pay is an upper bound, it's unclear why approaching it is "fair".
>> Instead, we got "more"."
Feel free to say that you don't want "more" from them. Since you've said that their rates are should be raised, this will be interesting. Do you want higher rates to collect less money?
> I approach that people make their entire living on investments should at the same rate because they derive a great deal of benefit from the society.
You're also ignoring the benefits. To a first approximation, they employ people, wage-earners don't. Wage earners only consume. Investors saved first and then produced lasting value.
Posted by: Andy Freeman on November 10, 2006 4:52 PMLook at that change! Look at all the new faces!
John Conyers, Charlie Rangel, Henry Waxman, Klansman Byrd, all full of great, new ideas like "raise the minimum wage" and "investigate the Executive branch". And now, George McGovern has come out of retirement to brief the Democrats on how to "wage peace". Maybe he can tour with Jimmy Carter, giving speeches to cheering crowds of baby boomers across the country on the subject.
And how about the Bush team! Bringing some of GHW Bush's great team, James Baker, Gates...and GW Bush says he's ready to work the the Democrats, especially on amnesty for illegals.
Let's get down, and party like it's 1989! Whoo-hoo!
Posted by: ellipsis on November 10, 2006 5:11 PMAndy I assume you are a troll of some sort but here goes.
I said that wage income and investment income should be taxed at the same rate and at a rate lower than the current wage income percentage as demonstrated by poor Mindles. Is that clear? Lower over all tax rates are good things to my mind.
You feel they should be they should be taxed less since they employ people. This may or may not be true - it depends on the individual investor. I can tell you there are all sorts of tax incentives to create jobs in certain parts of the US. But for my latest venture I have outsourced the entire team to India with some support in the Ukraine. Why? Cause I can hire an entire programming team in India for what my healthcare costs were for my last company here in the US. (So I guess I am hiring someone - just not Americans. See reducing your costs is a key part of business.)
"To a first approximation, they employ people, wage-earners don't. Wage earners only consume. Investors saved first and then produced lasting value."
There are many things wrong with this. First off you only care about the return and security of your investment. You might not hire people - you might simply live off investments such as tax free munis or that huge trust fund. Does this create value? Sure - that capital needs to be invested somewhere. Does this mean it shouldn't be taxed when it generates dividends or capital gains? Of course not.
Please note I am not advocating a sock it to the rich attitude - merely pointing out our current system is a little unfair to those who rely on wage income exclusively. Arguing that the current rate is the absolutely correct number when it has varied and any change might be disastrous is silly.
Posted by: Brian Despain on November 10, 2006 5:14 PMRaise the minimum wage! Yeah. Boy did the current Administration miss the boat on that one. Given our incredibly low unemployment rate, the labor pool is really tight and almost no employers pay minimum wage. Almost every day I drive by the local McDonalds (Las Vegas NM has exactly 1) and I see this sign, "Hiring now. Starting wage $7.25/hour." So in my opinion the administration could have raised the minimum wage and it would have affected almost no one. But they have almost a pretenatural loathing of the minimum wage as it is - this allow the Democratic party to put six minimum wage ballot initiatives out there to drum up support. Take a page from the Rovian gay marriage playbook.
Posted by: Brian Despain on November 10, 2006 5:22 PMYes, yes, yes, raising the minimum wage was popular this year, thanks to the ongoing debauchment of the currency by the Greenspan/Helicopter Fed. That's not the point, though. The Democrats got elected as new brooms, with new ideas, and "raise the minimum wage" isn't exactly a new idea, is it? Not exactly a bold, daring, world-changing Leadership for the 21st Century concept, although you may see it that way.
Nor is Robert Byrd exactly the poster boy for "no more porkbarrels", for that matter. As someone who was paying active attention to politics in 1989, this is getting to be deja vu all over again...
Posted by: ellipsis on November 10, 2006 5:29 PMRight you are ellipsis - I don't think we are going to single new idea from this group of Democrats. No I don't think raising the minimum wage is a bold exciting or novel idea. My point is that was something the Democrats used to increase turnout that could have easily been taken away from them.
My hope is the President Bush vetoes every single bill. No legislation is better than bad legislation.
Perhaps pastel suits will make a come back or Izods. Perhaps we are due for more Phil Collins and the Police.
Right you are ellipsis - I don't think we are going to single new idea from this group of Democrats. No I don't think raising the minimum wage is a bold exciting or novel idea. My point is that was something the Democrats used to increase turnout that could have easily been taken away from them.
I do not think the latter point is correct. If Bush had proposed an increase in the minwage from $5.15 to $6.50/hr and actually signed it into law, the initiatives to raise it further than that would still have gone forward. I guess he could have gotten into a bidding war, pushing it to $7.50 or $8.00, but at some point the Business Round Table / Wall Street Journal crowd would protest. Actually, as I think upon this and recall just how much the BRT/WSJ loves illegal, sub-minwage labor, I suspect that they would have pressed him not to raise the minwage at all.
My hope is the President Bush vetoes every single bill. No legislation is better than bad legislation.
Good luck on that. Did you see or hear the press conference earlier this week?
Perhaps pastel suits will make a come back or Izods.
Well, there's already been a remake/movie of "Miami Vice", and they didn't catch on the.
Perhaps we are due for more Phil Collins and the Police.
Hmmm...
Posted by: ellipsis on November 10, 2006 5:49 PMSince there is a graduated income tax, wage income is taxed at a very low rate for those under given income levels. A reasonable goal for tax policy in the US would be to promote savings, which would dictate lower taxes on all forms of income but more sales tax or VAT tax. I would be in favor of that if I thought that our politicians could be trusted to do what's in the best interests of the country, but I don't. It seems to me that that the people who get involved in national politics are mostly untalented and ethically challenged. Good people don't want to waste their time.
Posted by: shamus on November 10, 2006 6:29 PMJane, you said that you'd be voting Dem; on what basis do you now claim to be a Lib? I have long believed that when the Lib vote totals are greater than the difference between the Depubicans and the Remocrats, that BOTH major parties will start taking more notice of us - and trying to coopt pieces of our agenda.
It's happening. The Libertarian vote in Montana was greater than the margin between the D and the R for the Senate.
But Jane - YOU HAVE TO VOTE LIBERTARIAN if that's the message you want to send!
Posted by: Ken Mitchell on November 10, 2006 7:23 PM> I said that wage income and investment income should be taxed at the same rate and at a rate lower than the current wage income percentage as demonstrated by poor Mindles. Is that clear? Lower over all tax rates are good things to my mind.
Unless that "same rate" is no higher than the current capital gains rate, it is an increase in the capital gains rate.
> First off you only care about the return and security of your investment. You might not hire people - you might simply live off investments such as tax free munis or that huge trust fund. Does this create value?
Feel free to argue that loaning money to govt destroys value. Until then, I'll point to the employment and infrastructure that results. The same goes for corporate bonds.
> Please note I am not advocating a sock it to the rich attitude - merely pointing out our current system is a little unfair to those who rely on wage income exclusively.
Except for that bit about "pay according to ability". That's "sock it to the rich".
> Arguing that the current rate is the absolutely correct number when it has varied and any change might be disastrous is silly.
I never said that the current number was correct. I merely asked, repeatedly, what fraction of the tax burden each income cohort should bear.
Refusal to answer that question and insisting on an "ability to pay" standard is not an answer.
Posted by: Andy Freeman on November 10, 2006 9:51 PMBrian Despain, when you wrote "pay according to ability", are you sure you didn't mean "from each, according to his abilities"? If so, shouldn't you just go ahead and include "to each, according to his needs" and get it over with?
Vladymir Ulyanov was a middle class dude, too, y'know...
Posted by: ellipsis on November 10, 2006 10:04 PMTo those who are convinced that the United States is doomed because the Democrats got elected, remember that if your country was so close to collapse that it required a one-party system (with all the incumbent corruption that goes with it) to survive, it wasn't long for this world anyway.
Regardless of ideology, the idea that country is best served with a single governing party is a very iffy concept. Without democracy (and you cannot have a non-sham democracy without more than one party sharing power), everything corrupts.
On a related array, as a Canadian Liberal party supporter I was appalled that the Liberals were becoming the sole national party. The resurgence of the Conservative party was a godsend for both Canada and the Liberals.
Similarly, does anyone think that eternal Republican rule would actually beneficial to the United States in the long run?
Posted by: Tom West on November 10, 2006 10:27 PM"A lot of libertarians, including me, got what we wanted this morning: a Democratic Congress.
I've got a baaaaaaad feeling that we're going to be suffering buyer's remorse by spring . . "
Nah....we don't wanna hear it from any of you. You break it you bought it
Posted by: Trump on November 10, 2006 10:32 PM"Unless that "same rate" is no higher than the current capital gains rate, it is an increase in the capital gains rate."
Hence a flat tax rate. So a flat tax is suddenly evil?
Except for that bit about "pay according to ability". That's "sock it to the rich".
No I didn't say pay according to ability. I was arguing and clearly you don't understand for a flat tax.
"I never said that the current number was correct. I merely asked, repeatedly, what fraction of the tax burden each income cohort should bear.
Refusal to answer that question and insisting on an "ability to pay" standard is not an answer."
Because you are asking a moronic question. You don't divide the population into quintiles and then ask "What percentage of the tax burden should go to which quintile?" You ask what percentage of a person's income (both wage and investment) should be taxed. I feel without too much thought about the issue that 20% is appropriate. The Catog Institute has 25% flat tax proposal.
Pointing out that someone who makes $300,000 pays more tax under such a system than someone who makes $50,000 is silly. 20% of $300,000 is $60,000. 20% of $50,000 is $10,000. How unfair! The person who makes more money is paying more in taxes!
ellipsis - Glad to hear that you think flat tax proposals are socialist. I think maybe Leninists over at the Cato Institute disagree with you.
https://www.cato.org/dailys/6-09-98.html
Posted by: Brian Despain on November 10, 2006 10:40 PMellipsis - Glad to hear that you think flat tax proposals are socialist. I think maybe Leninists over at the Cato Institute disagree with you.
Are you really claiming that "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" has the slightest thing to do with a flat tax?
Posted by: ellipsis on November 10, 2006 10:50 PMAre you really claiming that I quoted Marx? What does Marx have to do with this discussion?
Posted by: Brian Despain on November 10, 2006 10:52 PMIdealize the decisions of George Washington and the faith of his soldiers past and present. It just might work out. At a liberal blog I follow, the following party is going on:
Free at last, free at last... or, freedom is at last in view. Well, freedom is no longer illegal. Or won't be anymore after we roll back all their crazy laws and overturn their Hitlerian executive orders.
This election just created a whole lot of happy citizens. And, speaking of taxes, maybe a happy taxpayer is a better taxpayer. At any rate, she is likely to be more willing to guard the polity.
Posted by: michael on November 10, 2006 10:56 PMAre you really claiming that I quoted Marx? What does Marx have to do with this discussion?
I just asked a question. It seems to have gotten you all worked up...
Michael wrote:
Idealize the decisions of George Washington and the faith of his soldiers past and present. It just might work out. At a liberal blog I follow, the following party is going on:
Free at last, free at last... or, freedom is at last in view. Well, freedom is no longer illegal. Or won't be anymore after we roll back all their crazy laws and overturn their Hitlerian executive orders.
Great news. Does this mean that these heroic liberals plan to also overturn the crazy laws their boy BJ Clinton passed in 1996 (Anti Terrorism Act), and overturn his EO's as well?
Somehow...I don't think so.
This election just created a whole lot of happy citizens.
If religion is the opiate of the masses, does this make politics the opiate of the intellectuals...or, hmm, at least those who pose as intellectuals?
And, speaking of taxes, maybe a happy taxpayer is a better taxpayer. At any rate, she is likely to be more willing to guard the polity.
Maybe so, or maybe a grouchy, cranky citizen will never be a happy taxpayer, but might just be inclined to guard the polity no matter what...
Posted by: ellipsis on November 10, 2006 11:42 PMJohn Conyers, via LGF, from IBD:
Congress: The likely new chairman of the House Judiciary Committee says he’s just fighting bigotry in leading a Democrat jihad to deny law enforcement key terror-fighting tools. But he is in the pocket of Islamists.
John Conyers, son of a leftist Detroit union activist, represents the largest Arab population in the country. His district includes Dearborn, Mich., nicknamed “Dearbornistan” by locals fed up with cultural encroachment and terror fears from a steady influx of Mideast immigrants.
Conyers, who runs an Arabic version of his official Web site, does the bidding of these new constituents and the militant Islamist activists who feed off them. They want to kill the Patriot Act and prevent the FBI from profiling Muslim suspects in terror investigations. They also want to end the use of undisclosed evidence against suspected Arab terrorists in deportation proceedings.
And the 77-year-old Conyers has vowed to deliver those changes for them.
“The policies of the Bush administration have sent a wave of fear through our immigrant communities and targeted our Arab and Muslim neighbors,” he growls.
He’ll soon be in a position to act on his promises. And he has the full backing of the expected speaker of the House. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., wants to criminalize FBI and Customs Service profiling of Muslim terror suspects.
“Since Sept. 11, many Muslim Americans have been subjected to searches at airports and other locations based upon their religion and national origin,” she said. “We must make it illegal.”
Posted by: Sandy P on November 11, 2006 12:03 AMAnon,
Look, I'm as outraged by Ruby Ridge as the next guy. Nay, make that more outraged. But not so outraged that I forget that the incident happened in the summer of '92, when GHWB (R) was still in office.
Mindles,
Great illustration using Teresa Heinz. But also, isn't it worth pointing out what a world of hurt our local governmental entities would be in if they suddenly lost their tax-free bond advantage and had to start offering higher rates? So many people rant against tax-free bonds as if the purchaser were the only one benefiting...
Brian: "Given our incredibly low unemployment rate, the labor pool is really tight and almost no employers pay minimum wage. Almost every day I drive by the local McDonalds (Las Vegas NM has exactly 1) and I see this sign, "Hiring now. Starting wage $7.25/hour." So in my opinion the administration could have raised the minimum wage and it would have affected almost no one."
So, you think the economy is exactly the same everywhere?
Posted by: markm on November 11, 2006 7:34 AMNo Markm I don't think the economy is the same everywhere but nationally unemployment is at an all time low (something like 4.2%), this could have taken an issue off the table. The Democratic Party used minimum wage ballot initiatives to increase turnout. A $1.00 increase in the minimum wage would have blunted turnout.
Las Vegas New Mexico is hardly a economic boom town BTW - quite the opposite.
Posted by: Brian Despain on November 11, 2006 11:41 AM>> "Unless that "same rate" is no higher than the current capital gains rate, it is an increase in the capital gains rate."
> Hence a flat tax rate. So a flat tax is suddenly evil?
I never said a flat tax was evil. I said that you were advocating a tax rate increase for certain folk, something that you deny and then admit.
>No I didn't say pay according to ability.
Except that you did.
>You ask what percentage of a person's income (both wage and investment) should be taxed.
Percentage of income IS "ability to pay"
> Because you are asking a moronic question. You don't divide the population into quintiles and then ask "What percentage of the tax burden should go to which quintile?"
It's such a stupid question that you can't answer it.
When I buy life insurance, it's risk based, ie likely consumption. When I buy a car or go to a restaurant, it's the same. "Ability to pay" is one of the rarest mechanisms, but it's somehow "moronic" to question it when it comes to income taxes.
In fact, the biggest employer in Las Vegas, NM is probably the state government. I find it interesting that McDonalds is paying that high there. Maybe they have to match the rate the state pays its workers in order to get employees that will stay for more than a couple of weeks & not do something extremely stupid.
I find myself wondering just how many people Mcd's employs at that store; when the min wage was raised to $2.00/hour, small businessmen I knew complained it was very hard to find anyone who was worth it. "They have a high school diploma, but they can't do $2.00 worth of work in an hour!" was the argument. One guy who ran a bookstore hired only college students who would work 20 hours/week or less, for various reasons, and still wasn't pleased with the results.
So to return, I wonder how many people at the McD's store in Las Vegas, NM are worth the rate?
Posted by: ellipsis on November 11, 2006 12:19 PMPercentage of income IS "ability to pay"
Think of it as 'fee for service' where the service is access to the American economy, those employees trained via public education and related ammenaties. An employer who makes $100,000 a year makes more extensive use of the economy that's been created, in part, by public investment in infrastructure.
Raising the tax rate for those who earn more would be "ability to pay."
Services based on 'ability to pay' do increase, however, when service providers can efficiently measure 'ability to pay'. For example, with rebates; If your time is valuable you won't cash the rebate. If your money is valuable, you'll fill out the form and cash the rebate. It's one form of differential pricing.
Posted by: Ryan on November 11, 2006 4:13 PM"I feel without too much thought about the issue that 20% is appropriate."
(laff, laff, laff)
This is the part where I cue-up Frank Zappa's "Call Any Vegetable".
I don't know when I last saw such abject confession.
Think of it as 'fee for service' where the service is access to the American economy, those employees trained via public education and related ammenaties.
This is my nomination for Quote of the Week...
Posted by: ellipsis on November 11, 2006 4:59 PM*snicker* It is far, far too late to run screaming. ;]
There is no justice, but there IS a great deal of unintended comedy here.
Posted by: Ironbear on November 12, 2006 12:44 AMAndy you aren't asking about "ability to pay" you are asking and incredible stupid question, "What percent of the tax burden should go to each income cohort?"
"It's such a stupid question that you can't answer it."
Because the question is meaningless. You are approaching the issue backwards. I am asking what percentage of income is a fair tax burden. I have proposed a flat 20% tax - getting rid of various marketing deforming deductions such as the mortgage interest tax credit.
"Ability to pay" is one of the rarest mechanisms, but it's somehow "moronic" to question it when it comes to income taxes.
No it's not moronic - but you aren't asking that. You asking how to divide up the tax burden according to income quintiles which to my mind backwards. I don't have to answer moronic questions to satisfy your debating point. Here's a hint - what do you think is a a fair tax rate?
The largest single employer in Las Vegas is Alta Vista Regional medical center which the hospital for northeast New Mexico.
Buyer's remorse? Where was all your common sense the day before the election? Those who rewarded the treasonous six-year temper tantrum of the left in the universitites, governments, and in the press by voting to punish the Adminisration could be considered more fecklessly evil than the Democratic base; they at least honestly believe their bull. Fools.
Posted by: Brett on November 13, 2006 8:31 AMThink of it as 'fee for service' where the service is access to the American economy, those employees trained via public education and related ammenaties.
Then you obviously don’t understand the concept of a “fee for service” which charges those who actually USE a service.
The primary beneficiaries of a “public education” are those who work in the education industry (teachers/professors, administrators, and the like) who are (shockingly) also the ones agitating the loudest for increases in school levies which largely go to support their wages and benefits.
The secondary beneficiaries are the students (those who actually USE the services) who benefit by gaining skills which enable them to charge a higher wage for their services which are (supposedly) of greater value than they would be but for the education.
Employers aren't the USER of "public education" and they don’t “benefit” until way down the line (if at all) and that’s assuming that the education actually does produce a greater skilled worker who is more productive. The problem with the post-hoc rationalization of charging them for the “education” of their “employees” is that (a) they aren’t the primary beneficiaries or even the secondary beneficiaries (their "benefit" is tangential at most) or the users (which is who SHOULD be charged in a fee for service arrangement) and (b) they’ve ALREADY PAID in the form of higher wages for their employees who (if the education really does provide a “benefit” other than employment for people in the education industry) charge higher wages because of the education.
If you wanted to really make an argument for a “fee for service” as it pertains to education (rather than a post-hoc rationalization for taxes), then the only legitimate arrangement would be to charge the “user” (student) tuition for the services.
Posted by: Thorley Winston on November 13, 2006 10:37 AMBrian Despain writes:
The largest single employer in Las Vegas is Alta Vista Regional medical center which the hospital for northeast New Mexico.
That's interesting, as I would have thought that Highlands University had more employees. However, either way it is worth noting that a government entity is the largest single employer in that small town. Either it's the biggest hospital for 100 miles, or the biggest university for 100 miles. Actually, "for 100 miles" is deceiving, because 100 miles in one direction reaches Santa Fe, the state capitol, while 100 miles east reaches basically nowhere.
A century ago, I wager the biggest employer in Las Vegas, NM was the railroad, with agricultural concerns next after that. The railroad became more efficient and needed fewer people to move more freight. Agriculture became more efficient and needed a whole lot fewer people to grow food.
Health care and higher education, on the other hand...
Posted by: ellipsis on November 13, 2006 10:41 AM> Andy you aren't asking about "ability to pay" you are asking and incredible stupid question, "What percent of the tax burden should go to each income cohort?"
I'll try short sentences.
Despain seems to think that ability to pay is the only rational way to tax. I point out that it's one of the least common charging mechanisms, so it's unclear why it is unquestionably correct.
I also ask another question, namely, what fraction of the tax burden should be borne by each income cohort.
Each income cohort bears some fraction of the
tax burden. That fraction is determined by the tax scheme that we choose, even though we don't tax by cohort. We often decide between assumptions by comparing their consequences so there is nothing backwards about using tax-by-cohort to evaluate a tax scheme.
There's been considerable blather about "fair", but is it "fair" for a small fraction of the population to pay for almost all of the infrastructure? Better yet, is it good?
Most folks now believe that long term welfare hurts the receipients. If that's true, then it probably applies outside of AFDC and the like. It may also apply to general govt services.
Then you obviously don’t understand the concept of a “fee for service” which charges those who actually USE a service.
When I worked in the Philippines, I had to pay Philippine taxes to their government. Why? What was I paying for? I'm not saying I regret the arrangement. I'm saying that far from being unusual, I can't think of many governments which DON'T charge you in one form or another for access to their economy. That people would pay for that access implies they get somthing in return. And what's a Tarriff, anyways?
So how do you fund those services present in all productive modern societies so that you don't have free riders? How do you fund a modern millitary or the police department, especially considering that a lot of criminals won't be able to support the system through fines.
A nation without these things wouldn't be able to charge as much for access to its economy, so the government is 'adding value.'
they’ve ALREADY PAID in the form of higher wages for their employees
I can give you lots of examples of businesses charging twice for the same product, if that's your objection. I pay for phone service and also minutes used. You can pay a cover charge for a bar and also pay for number of drinks. And so on.
Though businesses paying employees are giving money to employees, not to any institution which helped fund their education. Perhaps interest free government loans to students to pay for publicly funded education, paid off when you're 21, would be a more precise way of paying for public ed. while ensuring everyone had access. But there could be some trouble collecting. And for the police or a modern millitary the free rider problems seem pretty insurmountable.
If businesses can argue that they need to hire people from overseas based on the excuse that there aren't enough talented workers in the US (not that I buy that) then increasing the labor pool of trained employees would be a service that businesses benefit from. Greater competition due to educational subsidization would reduce employee wages.
There are businesses which prefer people with a High School diploma over those without, so it's hard to argue that public education has no worth whatsoever.
I'm not saying that the system is as efficient as it could be. I'd be fine with vouchers. But arguing that somthing is inefficient is not the same as arguing that it doesn't provide a benefit to employers, which it does.
Posted by: Ryan on November 13, 2006 4:32 PMWell it's really quite close but Highlands and Altavista are similar in size. 80 years ago Las Vegas was the biggest city in New Mexico and the largest employer was indeed the railroad. Alta Vista is a privately owned hospital ellipsis. You might be thinking of the state mental hospital which is also located here in Las Vegas.
I assume you must be familar with this part of New Mexico, since Highlands despite its age is hardly a well know university. In fact you must be from somewhere around here since this part of New Mexico isn't exactly a tourist mecca.
Andy - I am not sure what your problem is. Is that you have a hard time understanding that people that earn more pay more in tax? What mechanism would you use for determining tax? I have yet to hear anything from you worth debating. Here's my tax proposal again 20% flat tax with various deductions removed? What's yours?
You spent that post defending the idea that we should think of tax revenue in terms of income cohorts and look surprise the richest people pay larger numbers!
I will ask again. What is your method for determing taxes?
Posted by: Brian Despain on November 13, 2006 5:01 PMWhy Conservatives Are So Angry
Debt Matters
We elect congressmen and congresswomen to represent our interests. We vote for self-described fiscal hawks who favor less government. But all we get is:
• A Congress that represents the lobbyist-money-changers in Washington
• A near $9 trillion debt
• An explosion in government spending that puts Liberal tax-and-spenders like Lyndon Johnson to shame
Integrity Matters
The moral lapses of the Clinton administration were, of course, distressing. We voted for self-described conservative representatives who claimed they would do better. But all we got was a never-ending chain of scandals ranging from sex crimes to bribe-taking to gambling promotion.
Each is driven by a combination of greed, power-lust, and arrogance. Of course, mistakes do happen. But even when individuals are caught red-handed, they refuse to take responsibility. All that results is finger pointing and excuses from congressmen hiding in rehabilitation centers. Misbehaving congressmen should be removed—period. Are we supposed to look up the definition of is again?
Immigration Matters
We are a country of laws. If you don’t like a law, change it. But a government that intentionally refuses to enforce select laws is weakening the whole “rule of law” and breaking its most sacred pledge to the governed.
Some employers are using illegal immigration to drive down wages and eliminate hard-working Americans from their payrolls. And of illegal immigrants gangs run roughshod over our communities, bringing with them:
• Violence (and the threat of violence)
• Crystal meth and other illegal drugs
• Prostitution
• And perhaps terrorists
Yet Congress and the White House repeatedly turn a blind eye in exchange for big business campaign donations and lobbying loot. The best they’ve done is pass a lame fence bill that covers no more than 10% of the problem (and they aren’t even obligated to follow through on that much). Yet many existing laws remain un-enforced.
What Should We Conservatives Do?
The Democratic Party is not the answer. It is at best beset by the same corruption as the Republican Party, and at worst completely at odds with our values. The only practical solution is to challenge Republican incumbents who fail to:
• Vote against bloated spending bills
• Demand immigration reform
• Hold their fellow members to the highest level of ethical conduct
We must stop giving money to any candidate who represents special interests over our interests.
Posted by: John Konop on November 13, 2006 7:04 PM> Is that you have a hard time understanding that people that earn more pay more in tax?
Despain confuses a specific choice with something that is necessarily true.
We've chosen a tax system where people who earn more pay more in a certain way. There are other possibilities, many of which have the "earn more, pay more" characteristic without concentrating the tax burden on certain income cohorts.
We've chosen a system where a small fraction of the population pays for everything other than SS and where even SS is paid for by a minority.
Does Despain think that this is good?
He seems upset that I'd think that we should evaluate the tax system by its consequences, just as we evaluate everything else. Perhaps he'll tell us how we should evaluate the tax system. (Note that his "fairness" argument for his favored system is a consequence, so his dismissal of consequence is a bit odd.)
Posted by: Andy Freeman on November 14, 2006 12:44 PM