I'm thinking that yesterday's post on the use of the phrase "the elite" omitted an important word from the discussion. A word that for the most part we are not allowed to use in polite political discussions.
The top 10% in income, those earning more than $108,904, paid 71%. Barack Obama says he's going to cut taxes for those at the bottom, but that's also going to be a challenge because Americans with an income below the median paid a record low 2.9% of all income taxes, while the top 50% paid 97.1%. Perhaps he thinks half the country should pay all the taxes to support the other half.
That is exactly what the problem is. The redistributionists who want to take away this money are the ones often derided as "the elite."
Whether the label is completely accurate or not, it's based on the fundamental unfairness involved in robbing the productive to pay the unproductive.
Actually, it could be argued that calling the redistrubutionists "the elite" is too mild of a term. The proper term might be, simply, "socialists." But because socialists almost never admit to being socialists, using an accurate term like that will usually result in that rolled eyeball look that suggests, "Oh, God, he's a right wing crank!"
That's because socialism does not and cannot exist in America, the Land of Opportunity. Only a right wing nut would say that it does.
And of course not only don't I want to look like a crank, I try to be polite. So rather than call people socialists or elitists I'll just pose a polite question.
At what point is socialism to be called socialism?
Seriously, does the word mean anything? Is there a percentage scale? Or has the word become meaningless jargon? If it has, what are the consequences for those (like me) who oppose socialism?
I worry that it might be a waste of time to oppose something that does not exist.
posted by Eric on 07.22.08 at 09:06 AM
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/6931
Comments
I believe that everyone should pay at least a nominal amount in taxes, even those on disability. It is participatory. At every tax cut for those below the median income, the percentage increases of those who pay nothing at at all. This increases the division and resentment in society, not alleviates it.
We don't get much back in dollars for taxing those with lower incomes, but we should do it for the psychological benefit. It is not good for character to be entirely a receiver.
Though there are difficulties with a national sales tax and I prefer other methods, it would at least solve that problem. Leaving necessities untaxed but taxing all elective purchases, everyone contributes.
At what point would you people actually discuss the actual ideas of socialism, rather than just brandishing it as a disinformation club? But I digress.
Nice try with the stats. Reminds me of what Mark Twain said about the three kinds of lies. As anyone with a brain can figure out, your stat or any other related to what percentage of taxes is paid only makes sense when you compare it to the amount of wealth held by the same percentile. Sorry if I'm confusing you with all this logic and analysis, but your site is called Classical Values. What would Aristotle think?
letsreal · July 22, 2008 11:18 AM
"At what point would you people actually discuss the actual ideas of socialism"
When proponents of socialism are ready to take responsibility for the real world failures of those ideas.
guy · July 22, 2008 11:46 AM
I think the term "socialism" only becomes acceptable to the socialists when they securely hold power. It wasn't always this way, of course - back when they had little track record at maximizing misery they could be open and up front. Today however the term is only non threatening to those with nothing to lose, who wouldn't mind some pieces of everyone else's pie.
Letsreal, whoever told you sneering is a good argument was wrong.
Steve Skubinna · July 22, 2008 11:50 AM
Focusing on just the income tax in this sort of analysis leads to wrong conclusions. The income tax is the only major tax that is progressive in nature; i.e., the rich pay more. Its important to remember that most other major taxes are regressive: social security, sales tax, excise tax, etc. Overall, there is little difference in the total tax rate between middle class and wealthy Americans.
Given the size of the U.S. deficit, I don't think Congress will be cutting the taxes poor people pay, regardless of what Obama wants.
chocolatier · July 22, 2008 11:53 AM
I think we should tax self-identified socialists at a higher rate. I'm sure they won't mind. And if they're good at house painting they should be required to paint my house every four years.
Lovernios · July 22, 2008 01:35 PM
chocolatier, that is a valid point, but most other taxes are not entirely regressive. While the sales tax or the property tax rate is the same for rich and poor, the rich generally buy more things and have more property. Only things like fuel taxes, of which the rich do not pay 10x more than the poor (because they don't use 10x more), fully deserve the term.
It is also fair to point out that for social security, people get more back for paying more - acknowledging, of course, that the balance sheet on that is now thoroughly screwed. I agree, however, that this is much more regressive than the income tax.
Your opening sentence with the phrase "you people" gives away so much of your thought. You are so sure that we belong to some category that fits into your narrative; quite confident that you have thought through these things while we wallow in ignorance. I think most commenters here would be able and eager to go one-on-one with you in a battle of wits.
My friends from Romania (I have two sons adopted from there and have been there many times) would love to discuss the actual ideas of socialism with you. They have a perspective you might find illuminating. As for me, I called myself a socialist many years ago and wrote for a socialist underground newspaper, so I am rather familiar with discussions of the actual ideas. Fancy that.
As to taxing overall wealth rather than income, that always sounds attractive to people of moderate means when the examples used are from the extremes of wealth. Our middle-class minds quite automatically think "they can spare it" when told that billionaires X and Y would be taxed 3% of their wealth, or whatever. But the consequences (in liquidity, investment, job creation) would be catastrophic - more for all of us than for them. Re-taxing people who have been prudent, focused on the long term, and hardworking is a good way to discourage people from being prudent, focusing on the long term, and working hard.
The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
Don?t bang your head!
I believe that everyone should pay at least a nominal amount in taxes, even those on disability. It is participatory. At every tax cut for those below the median income, the percentage increases of those who pay nothing at at all. This increases the division and resentment in society, not alleviates it.
We don't get much back in dollars for taxing those with lower incomes, but we should do it for the psychological benefit. It is not good for character to be entirely a receiver.
Though there are difficulties with a national sales tax and I prefer other methods, it would at least solve that problem. Leaving necessities untaxed but taxing all elective purchases, everyone contributes.