How the Next President Can Return America to Prosperity

"Unless you explain what you're talking about, "digress" is a good word. This one is an argument that doesn't exist at all except in circular reference to nothing."

Ahh, good old liberal double-speak. This was your argument, Daniel:

"I was accountant for a privately-held incorporated manufacturer back in the high-tax '70s before S-corp. Those people would have been taxed to death at about 75% on any money (other than salary) they attempted to take out via dividends. So they didn't. They reinvested constantly, resulting in job creation and employment growth. (That, by the way, is also an excellent tax shelter, but is prompted only by having high taxes in the first place.). Their employees knew the score, admired them for caring enough to expand, and worked their tails off (happily.)"

Now, whether you're being sarcastic or not, you've described exactly how cutting taxes or keeping taxes low leads to job creation and increased wealth. Maybe it's tongue in cheek, but until you can prove that higher taxation can lead to higher economic growth, then I will stand by this argument that you have succinctly made.

Chris of AZ @ Jul 04, 2008 16:18:46 PM

Welcome to the Richest 20%

"redistribution that constantly occurs in any society from the poorest 80% to the richest 20%"

If that's the case, then it would be exceedingly difficult to move from the lower and middle classes to the uper middle and upper classes and vice versa. Speaking only as a sample size of one, I can tell you that my grandparents were certainly members of the proletariat and that I am almost definitely in that elite 20%. Looking at my extended family (whose socioeconomic histories I happen to know), there are a number of people who probably fall into the top 20%. Pre-1980 that was not the case (although one uncle did own a high-end Chrysler). Given the cruelties of the Reagan-era, I doubt that income redistribution was a primary cause of the improvement.

The Dirty Mac of NJ @ Jul 04, 2008 06:34:44 AM

Say what, Chris?

"It's surprising that you, in one sentence, not only blow up your own argument, but support mine at the same time. But I digress...again."

Unless you explain what you're talking about, "digress" is a good word. This one is an argument that doesn't exist at all except in circular reference to nothing.

Daniel David of NM @ Jul 03, 2008 11:02:34 AM

Misleading, Mistaken Leaders

Any several, chosen at random authoritative volumes on Economics, easily demonstrate how mistaken both current candidates are with their solutions for the nation’s financial miasma. As voters, it seems as if in this election race, the only difference between the zoo’s monkey island and our daily thinking is just our perception of which side of the fence we’re on.

Chickster of WA @ Jul 02, 2008 23:31:19 PM

Obama won't do it.

It's for sure Obama won't do it. His biggest brag of the primary was he was getting almost all of the black vote. He doesn't care about anything but himself. And Michelle is no better.

Katherine of IN @ Jul 02, 2008 22:26:10 PM

Actually, no, I don't have it backwards. Whether you tax the rich at 35% (as it is now) or 92% (as it was during the 60s), they are still going to be rich and they will still have the drive to work hard and make money. After all, that is why they are rich. However, you tell the poor that hey, we're just going to raise your taxes because we don't think you're paying enough (and this is what always happens), what would incentivize the poor to work even harder? After all, the poor makes most of their money through wages, not through dividends or stocks.

It's surprising that you, in one sentence, not only blow up your own argument, but support mine at the same time. But I digress...again.

Chris of AZ @ Jul 02, 2008 22:01:14 PM

Chris, I don't think we're going to agree on taxation. While you think that the poor seeing progressive taxation of the rich will discourage the poor from working hard, I think it's precisely the other way around.

I was accountant for a privately-held incorporated manufacturer back in the high-tax '70s before S-corp. Those people would have been taxed to death at about 75% on any money (other than salary) they attempted to take out via dividends. So they didn't. They reinvested constantly, resulting in job creation and employment growth. (That, by the way, is also an excellent tax shelter, but is prompted only by having high taxes in the first place.). Their employees knew the score, admired them for caring enough to expand, and worked their tails off (happily.)

Daniel David of NM @ Jul 02, 2008 20:05:45 PM

"They are there secondly, not to redistribute from rich to poor, but to prevent the otherwise inevitable (see Pareto and his law) redistribution that constantly occurs in any society from the poorest 80% to the richest 20%."

No. In its curernt form, taxes are there to take from the rich and provide for the poor. There is no denying this (although you are trying). But as I mentioned before, and I'll mention again, taxes never stay static to one group. In time, they find their way into all classes, either directly or indirectly.

"In the example of the first paragraph, you see, you're worried about whether A-Rod gets to keep more of his quarter-billion-dollar contract. I'm worried about whether fans are over-paying badly for his "services" in the first place---together with those of the actors and the CEOs and the traders and others."

You don't know what I'm worried about. But since you care, I'll tell you. I am worried about the state of the poor, but not in the same way that you are. I do not believe that it is our place, nor is it moral, ethical or justified, to take from one class of individual, regardless of status, and give to another, regardless of status. Getting out of poverty is not a quick game you can play. It takes years, sometimes generations, to achieve it. You need hard work and dedication and discipline. These are the principles that the rich employed and were rewarded for it. Taking from the rich does not deter them from working hard, but it definitely does deter the poor from doing so. After all, if you see the rich being taxed for being successful, why would you work hard if all you know is that someone is going come and take your fruits?

"I contend that the citizens (even as dumbly "willing" participants), are being soaked by these select few guys and that steeply escalating tax brackets have a way of both preventing the excesses and mitigating the damage."

You can only be soaked if you allow yourself to be soaked. People like you do not give people credit when credit's due. But I digress.

"Meanwhile, too, there is the pesky little problem of un-ending deficits."

A red herring. Deficits were there and will be there in the next administration. The only way they're going to go away is if the government does something quite drastic - cut spending. You can raise taxes all you want, but if government does not curtail its insatiable appetite for spending, the deficit will never fall.

Chris of AZ @ Jul 02, 2008 19:00:43 PM