Re: [OT] A Little More Political Humor

In article <2005082820312743658%briantlewis@STOPTHESPAMNOWcincirrcom>,
Brian Lewis <briantlewis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On 2005-08-28 01:43:44 -0400, ZnU <znu@xxxxxxxxxxxx> said:
>
> > In article <nowhere-67303D.19035027082005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> > Travelinman <nowhere@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <znu-BE8283.19344127082005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> >> ZnU <znu@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> >>> Theoretically, the data doesn't rule out the idea that it's rich
> >>> Republicans in the blue states giving more than they get, and poor
> >>> Democrats in the red states getting more than they give. But that's not
> >>> really a reasonable thing to believe -- it doesn't, as I pointed out,
> >>
> >> Actually, it's not a matter of belief - it's a matter of fact.
> >>
> >> People who pay high taxes are, in general, paying more than they
> >> receive from the government. These people are much more likely to be
> >> Republican.
> >>
> >> People with low incomes (and therefore low taxes) receive more than they
> >> pay.
> >
> > We've had this argument before. And as I pointed out the last time
> > around, the rich benefit much more from the status quo, so it makes
> > more sense that they pay more to maintain it.
> >
> > [snip]
>
> That doesn't make sense. People in the upper income brackets rarely, if
> ever, need to use the entitlements that a good chunk of their taxes
> provides. It's one thing to say that as your income rises, your taxes
> should rise as well. It's a totally different thing to say that as your
> income rises, your taxes should disporportionally rise in order to more
> greatly fund entitlements.

Two problems with that argument.

First, you're focusing on 'entitlements'. That word seems to be a
catch-all for any services provided by the government that the
right-wing doesn't approve of. But the government does a lot of other
things. It makes sure people don't steal your stuff. It regulates
currency. It removes market barriers, such as predatory monopolies. It
provides security. It provides common infrastructure like roads and
water systems. Modern markets couldn't exist without these services.

It's also worth noting that many of the services government provides
protect or benefit *wealth*. The wealthy tend to have proportionally
more wealth than income vs. the middle class, because they spend a
smaller fraction of their income on expenses. The top 1% pay something
like 25% of all federal taxes despite "only" making 13% of the income.
But consider that the top 1% also own 38% of the wealth.

Secondly, you're not taking into account that most 'entitlements' have
indirect benefits to the rich. Publican education, for instance, ensures
that there will be educated workers. Public health programs both
increase the productivity of the workforce and prevent the spread of
disease (rich people can get diseases too, you know). Welfare programs
give people a chance to get back on their feet -- and back into the
workforce -- rather than ending up in permanent poverty, on the streets.

> Personally, I've never really understood the whole wealth
> redistribution philosophy. I understand the need to fund programs for
> those down on their luck (I've been laid off before and had to draw
> unemployment,) however I don't think the rich deserve any special
> status as those that foot the bill for those that aren't.

Basically, there are a couple of things at work here, besides the simple
moral argument that we shouldn't be letting people starve:

1) There are services which make people more productive, but which they
cannot afford to pay for themselves. It makes sense for government to
pay for these services -- it's an investment, not an expense.

2) Wealth generates more wealth. Market economies fall into a class of
systems that are inherently "rich get richer". If you don't have some
form of extra-market wealth redistribution, money tends to concentrate
more and more at the top, which is inefficient for the market (it tends
to depress consumption) and tends to seriously distort power
relationships within society in ways that are harmful to democracy.

--
"It's in our country's interests to find those who would do harm to us and get
them out of harm's way."
-- George W. Bush in Washington, D.C., April 28, 2005
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT: Karl Rove steps down
    ... If you think paying a respectable amount of taxes is the same as ... and tax fiddles are done in order to not have to pay much ... I'm not making a positive assertion about government. ... plunder the wealth of someone who got their wealth illegally. ...
    (rec.arts.theatre.musicals)
  • Re: Obamas Remarks on Retirement Security
    ... pensions, health care, greedy CEO's, and all the rest? ... the government or some general thing about we care for them. ... Who is going to pay ... Taxes on ALL income. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: OT Wall street occupation.
    ... What would make it NOT a tax on wealth. ... Both are taxes poor people can only wish they'd have to pay. ...
    (alt.home.repair)
  • Re: Peter King
    ... Yes...the rich SHOULD be asked to pay more than our cleaning ... income taxes than the poor. ... that issue is to approximate cost based on usage (which, by the way, would ... That's wealth redistribution ...
    (alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots)