Apparently, a number of people in the comments genuinely did not understand the point of my last post. Okay, let's go over it again.
It is common to hear Democrats/progressives complain that Republicans/conservatives/libertarians are selfish because they want to cut taxes instead of spending that money on national health insurance or expanded welfare benefits or some other social program.
But this makes absolutely no sense. Democrats are not advocating spending their own money on the poor; they're advocating spending the money of a very small group of voters who lean Republican. One might argue that this very small group of voters is selfish, but they are not the majority, or even a plurality, of Republicans staunchly opposed to taxes. Or other people opposed to taxes. Of all of the libertarian bloggers out there advocating lower taxes and social spending, I'm hard pressed to think of one who wouldn't personally benefit more from the increased social spending than from the lower taxes.
The majority of people opposed to purchasing the higher-taxes/lower-social-spending combo pack may be wrong on some utilitarian basis, but whatever their sins, they are not the sin of selfishness.
Yet public debate often features an underlying moralistic current in which Democrats act as if they have captured the moral high ground on matters of the public purse--as if advocating public charity were some lesser form of engaging in private charity. It isn't. It may be necessary to take money from third parties in order to give it to other third parties, but doing so at absolutely no personal cost to yourself is not an act of virtue.
You're right on this one. Spending other people's money on your purposes is not a virtue. It's a vice.
Democrats don't pay taxes? Sign me up
I agree that we shouldn't confuse political economy with questions of virtue. But can we also discuss the questions of virtue? I know you're probably speaking in the voice of your critics when you describe selfishness as a sin, but is that a voice you would adopt for yourself? Is selfishness really a sin? In making the distinction between economics and ethics, should we so readily concede the theology that says it is?
Stephen,
Ms. McArdle's point is not that Democrats don't pay taxes. It's that most of the people advocating for higher marginal tax rates for the top income bracket are not themselves in that tax bracket, and neither are most of the people opposed to those higher rates. Most of the debate takes place between people whose taxes would not change if the highest marginal rates were raised, so concepts like "selfishness" or "charity" really aren't playing into the argument.
I think Megan is fundamentally correct but is overstating the point. Higher taxes can be used to fund any government expenditures (including interest payments on the national debt) or even to bring the budget into balance (with a presumably downward effect on inflation that will preserve the wealth of those who have invested in fixed income assets, such as wealthy "coupon clippers.")
But no question that it is always easier to be generous with other people's time and money. I recall that Theordore Dalrymple wrote a pretty good piece on this in New Criterion, where he made the point that the modern measure of virtue too often is "good feelings" (good meaning as "right" in some moral sense as defined by the great and good) as opposed to "right actions." Taxing other people to pay for social programs you favor would certainly seem to be analogous. And to quote Shaw, "Be careful of those very feeling people. They'll never do you much good. They try to pay you with feelings."
I'm confused. After all, S-CHIP (we are talking about S-CHIP still, right?) was being funded with a cigarette tax, not an increase in marginal rates. Now, I have no idea which way cigarette smokers lean politically, but this is pretty obviously just a gotcha game. If we tax a middle -class or poor constituency, it's unfair because they're not rich enough, but if we tax a rich one, it's unfair because we're not rich enough.
Instead of this, how about telling us which tax you support to pay for, say, the occupation of Iraq?
I don't think the moral reasoning behind progressive taxation is "make the rich pay for everything."
Rather, progressive taxation (where the rich pay more taxes) is an attempt to recognize the reality that paying taxes is far less of a burden to the rich than to the middle class and poor. If your goal is to spread the burden evenly, then, the tax rates for the rich must be higher so that their burden is the same as everyone else's.
If that doesn't make sense, look at it this way. Let's say Worker A makes $20,000 per year, and B makes $1,000,000, and there's a flat tax of 10%. So, Worker A pays $2,000 and has $18,000 left to live on, while B pays $100,000 and has $900,000 left to live on. Obviously, the poor worker feels that 10% tax far more keenly than does the rich worker.
In a progressive taxation system, the richer worker is therefore taxed at a much higher rate, to bring the burden borne by both workers more in line.
Now, I don't claim to know what the ideal ratio is (how much more do the rich have to be taxed for their burden to be comparable to the poor?), but the point is that it's about spreading the burden, not attacking the rich.
It's like we should think of distributions as if we didn't know who we were, or something. I read that in a book once.
*insert an erudite explanation of pro bono publico here
I support War Bonds. Conversely I would support the issuance of Poor Bonds, to be used directly for paying for welfare of all sorts.
And how is this relative burden every going to be equatable. And how does taxing an estate play into this. After all, first the govt takes a cut of the estate, and then the govt takes a cut from the beneficiaries as income, after presumably taking a cut from the deceased when income was earned.
And that is why there is somewhat of a backlash when either party tries to use an individual person to represent the argument. Lately with SCHIP, the Frosts, Paul Simon, the Wilkersons. Two of whom already qualified under SCHIP. And how about the convenient lie, that Bush wanted to kill SCHIP, when in fact he wanted to expand it by 5 billion.
It's using emotion to sell public policy, and pretty clumsily at that.
Peter,
You can only draw the conclusion you do if you assume that the two people are otherwise identical. Otherwise, a priori (and, ironically, I might add), you have to assume they feel the loss identically- a 10% loss of property.
As you note, the problem with progressive taxation is that you now have no fundamental principle on which to base the tax rates. One is free to tax any group of individuals how ever much they can get the majority of voters to agree to.
The most obvious way to address this conundrum is to have progressive spending, not taxation. Not perfect, but better from the principle point of view, in my opinion. Certainly more in line with the idea of charity.
As for progressive taxation, I think we should also adjust marginal rates for the natue of the income. For instance, set the "normal rate" at each income level at whatever you want. Then reduce it by x percentage points at each level for income earned from socially desirable professions (say a teacher or public health worker). Also raise it by x percentage points at each level for income earned from socially undersirable professions (say a race car driver or politican). And raise it to something greater than 100% for the really pernicious professions, like lawyer or hedge fund manager.
Yancey,
The reason why they feel the burden differently is precisely because we can't make spending progressive. A loaf of bread costs me the same regardless of my income.
Now, there are examples where there IS an attempt to make spending progressive. Here in NYC, for instance, it's common to require new construction to set aside units for people at various income levels, with various associated rent caps.
Outside of specific examples like housing, though, it's hard to see how making spending progressive is at all feasible (economy-wide government set price controls? Doubt that's a path we really want to go too far down).
Again, I'm not offering specific numbers here. I'm just trying to illustrate the motivating principle behind progressive taxation. We can debate what the actual numbers should be, but I think we should be clear on what the philosophical basis of that debate is.
I support War Bonds.
War Bonds are loans. That means the government has to pay them back, presumably with either taxes or yet more loans. Which in turn means they don't 'pay' for anything, except in the same sense deficit spending is already 'paying' for the war.
But this makes absolutely no sense. Democrats are not advocating spending their own money on the poor; they're advocating spending the money of a very small group of voters who lean Republican.
Hogwash. First of all, as has been pointed out MY taxes are also going to be spent on the poor. Secondly, people shouldn't get a pass on paying taxes simply because they are Republicans. We are Americans before we are Republicans or Democrats, aren't we? Thirdly, I am advocating spending the money of a small group of voters who will absolutely not miss it in the slightest. Even after jacking up their rates, they will STILL be far wealthier and better off than I am. So squawking about how unfair it all is to confiscate/steal the fruits of their success pulls no weight with me.
The majority of people opposed to purchasing the higher-taxes/lower-social-spending combo pack may be wrong on some utilitarian basis, but whatever their sins, they are not the sin of selfishness.
Hogwash again. It absolutely IS selfishness. You simply choose not to see it as such or do the work of exploring the ultimate basis of these peoples' objections; when you get right down to it, their objection boils down to how unfair it is that they should be asked to give up their own resources for the benefit of someone else. That is almost the textbook definition of selfishness.
It may be necessary to take money from third parties in order to give it to other third parties, but doing so at absolutely no personal cost to yourself is not an act of virtue.
It's absolutely remarkable that you can come up with this statement, and then with no sense of irony at all dismiss Matt's expressing the exact same feeling in regard to those who advocate starting wars at no cost to themselves.
Bo - you mean like Social Security...
Last I checked, bonds were an acceptable means of financing various projects in the US. Happens at all levels of government and personal life.
Peter: For businesses, its actually at least a good idea, if not important, to make prices progressive, though more accurately, to extract higher prices from people and organizations who value the goods and services more.
Hence Business Class on airlines, software that is free for personal use but not for commercial use, free 5 minute out of date stock quotes, but current quotes cost real money, etc.
(for more reading: _Information Rules_ by Shapiro and Varian)
bonds were an acceptable means of financing various projects in the US
Our current financing method, borrowing money outright, is also quite common I hear. However, 'financing' and 'paying for' are two completely different actions, so it only remains to discover whether you are being willfully obtuse or just ignorant.
Peter Bautista -
In my business 4 people doing the same basic job make different amounts of money.
Person 1 - works for the Government and makes 50k
a. 100% job security - 9-5 hours
Person 2 - works in private industry and makes 75k
a. Longer hours less job security
Person 3 - works for a consulting firm makes 120k
a. 100% travel less job security
Person 4 - Self employed consultant 200k
a. No job security and no benifits 100%
travel
If a person choses to work less, take less risk, and therefor make less money, why does that lessen their obligation to society?
Person 4 is doing the hardest most risky job, if rates rise a few percent it doesn't make sense to go the extra mile. And if the hardest most risky jobs don't get done, and the economy stagnates.
Amen, Jane, er, Megan.
For those still missing Megan's point, maybe the following story will illustrate: Many years ago, Senator Kennedy proposed in committee that a rider be attached to a bill under consideration by the committee. The rider was to provide a cash payment to the family of a long time Senate employee who had died, leaving a young family. Senator Hatch, the committee's chair, objected to the inclusion of the rider. Kennedy was upset and accused Hatch and the others opposed to the rider of being unfeeling. Hatch countered that he was perfectly willing to write a personal check to the family and would help raise money from the rest of the Senate, but he didn't think this was a proper use of government resources.
Which of these two Senators was the more compassionate, the one who proposed using government resources or the one willing to use his own resources? I don't think we can answer the question. Kennedy really believes he's doing God's own work when he authors such riders. Hatch really believes such riders are inappropriate. Neither position tells us much about the Senator's heart, yet Kennedy thought Hatch was being petty and hard hearted for opposing the good thing Kennedy wanted to do.
That's Megan's point: Republican's are painted by the media and Democrats (too often the same thing) as being petty and hard hearted when, in reality, they (may) have honest intellectual reasons for opposing a particular policy proposal.
This jives with my own experience. I advise a lot of wealthy families. As a general rule, my Republican clients tend to give far more to charity than do my Democrat clients. Why? The Democrats tend to believe government should take care of things. When made aware of a problem, their first impulse is to write a letter to Congress, not write a personal check. Doing something themselves is just a band-aid. Getting government to take over is a permanent solution. Republicans tend to assume more personal responsibility for solving a problem. They tend to think getting government involved just makes things worse. To Democrats, "just writing a check" is the "easy thing to do". They do more good by "getting involved" and "changing things for the better". To Republicans, becoming involved means expending personal resources (time and money), not turning a problem over to the government. One view may be better than the other, but one's not necessarily more hard hearted than the other.
Even for people in the highest tax bracket, advocating higher taxes to pay for social spending cannot be seen as evidence of virtue. It's not like they have any fear that their advocacy will produce policy change. Since they could be attempting to capture utility associated with seeing themselves as "progressive," and since they do not internalize the costs of their proposals, it is simply not possible to infer that they are virtuous. It just doesn't matter whether a person would be affected if their proposed policy were adopted as long as they're not in a position to cause their proposed policy to be adopted.
liberalrob:
You realize that your statement ("I am advocating spending the money of a small group of voters who will absolutely not miss it in the slightest. Even after jacking up their rates, they will STILL be far wealthier and better off than I am.") is practically the dictionary definition of envy.
So let's have the debate: Which is the greater vice, selfishness or envy?
I'll go with envy. Selfishness creates the invisible hand and all the good that come with it, whereas envy is recognized as bad all the way back to the 10 Commandments.
What's your defense for envy? Or at the least, why is envy preferable to selfishness?
Sam,
Those are good counter examples. I was thinking more along the lines of non-discretionary spending, though. There are certain things, such as food, shelter, clothing, etc, that everyone needs to buy, regardless of income. Even though there may be different kinds of food, shelter, etc you can buy, there is a minimal amount and quality of these goods people need to have to maintain their health and well-being.
Another way of putting it is that every single person has a minimal amount of non-discretionary spending they must make.
Taxes should not impede people's ability to make necessary, non-discretionary spending. The less income you have, the smaller that cushion between "necessary spending" and "extra" is, and so the greater a burden taxation is. Conversely, the higher up the income scale you go, the greater the cushion is, and so the less the burden of taxation is. Hence why, again, someone feels 10% far more keenly at $20,000 than at $1,000,000.
Now if we as a society have decided that certain goods are worth spending on (a high-tech standing army, for instance), there's a cost associated with it. Progressives say that everyone's burden should be as close to equal as possible, hence the taxes needed to purchase things like a high-tech army should be progressively distributed.
The national conversation can, and should, be over what we're spending our resources on (wars in Iraq vs health insurance for all, for instance). What I don't understand is those people who are FOR massive spending and against progressive taxation.
Liberalrob:
If a person is looking at graduate school and they love both math and music - is it immoral for them to chose a masters in music vs. a masters in finance?
Don't people have an obligation to earn as much as they can so as to provide the government with the resources necessary to provide for the less fortunate.
I also want to point out to Liberalrob that you have to be in a pretty high tax bracket not to miss the tax bite. We're in the top 3%, and believe me, we feel the tax bite painfully. And we work damn hard for our money.
But I'll grant you (maybe)the top 1% as not feeling the tax bite too much, and certainly I'll grant you the top 0.5%.
liberalrob:
...when you get right down to it, their objection boils down to how unfair it is that they should be asked to give up their own resources for the benefit of someone else.
Leaving aside that nobody's asking, they're compelling by threat of prison, does it ever occur to you liberals that this method of removing money from one group and giving it to others simply isn't working? Is it seflishness to notice this? Are you being virtuous by ignoring it?
JMO - the tax burden isn't based on how much risk you take, or even how valuable you are to society. It's morally agnostic in that sense. All people have equal value, and all are contributing to the things society is purchasing in common (such as roads, schools, military, etc).
So all the only question that matters is, how equally is the tax burden shared?
Let's say that your person 4 has a twin sister, and she has the same type of job:
- Self employed consultant 200k. No job security and no benifits 100% travel.
Unlike her twin, though, she has a bad year. So, she still has no job security, no benefits, and 100% travel, but this year only made $50,000. Should her tax rate be the same as her twin at $200k?
I would say no. Her tax rate should be less, because it's the income that determines how burdensome the taxes are, not how much work or security or any other factor.
If that doesn't make sense, look at it this way. Let's say Worker A makes $20,000 per year, and B makes $1,000,000, and there's a flat tax of 10%. So, Worker A pays $2,000 and has $18,000 left to live on, while B pays $100,000 and has $900,000 left to live on. Obviously, the poor worker feels that 10% tax far more keenly than does the rich worker.
Using your simple minded logic (which is very old, by the way), one could readily justify a ninty percent tax rate on B, leaving her with one hundred thousand to live on. Ya gotta do better than that.
Peter,
I was not talking about personal spending, I was talking about government spending. I actually have few problems with social support discounts, like free schooling for those below a determined income level, or any other government service we have decided we will have- even access to roads and the like.
My concern with progressive taxation is that it gives one the impression that government and its largesse is free if the tax burden directly applied is light or non-existent. I think it important and healthy that all people feel the bite of taxes directly and as close to proportionally as possible.
Like I wrote, progressive spending is not perfect, but it aligns things more properly from a principled point of view.
Well, if it's good enough for "financing" future social security entitlements, why isn't it good enough for financing the war.
We are all "saddled" with the past obligations of our government, whether for war, or entitlements.
From each according to their means, to each according to their needs....
It's when wants are confused with needs when you get the most argument.
When does personal responsibility come in to play in all this. I'm all for providing a safety net. Even, to some extent, helping people to learn how to help themselves. But having the government helping people who should be able to help themselves is a line we shouldn't cross.
I'd rather make health care affordable then provide insurance to people who should be able to afford it, but choose not to.
Peter -
But what about those who choose to make less? I know many consultants who've gone from making 200k to 100k so they can stay home and see the kids. But in so doing they have robed the government of tens of thousands in revenue.
I know a software salesman who was making 3-4 million a year. He decided to take a year off and work as a chair lift operator at a ski resort. At least $1,000,000 that could have been used for any number of worthy causes was lost. Did he have an obligation to keep working?
From each according to his abilities - not from each according to how much he choses to make.
Peter, flat taxers will never have an electoral majority so the whole argument is the degree of progressivity. According to IRS data the top 1% of earners pay something like 34% of income taxes, the top 10% bear roughly 66% of the tax burden and the top 50% bear 96% of the tax burden leaving 4% for the bottom 50%. I don't know, but that seems pretty damn progressive to me. In your perfect world, how would you adjust the above numbers?
Well, if it's good enough for "financing" future social security entitlements, why isn't it good enough for financing the war.
Do you at least understand what the word 'future' means? If you did, you'd probably realize that there's a fundamental difference between paying in the future for future spending, and paying in the future for current spending. Current SS taxes are more than covering current SS spending.
But really, this is all one can expect from Republicans. If it helps sick kids, they talk about how we're stealing from people to pay for it, but if it's a war, the money fairy provides.
You realize that your statement ("I am advocating spending the money of a small group of voters who will absolutely not miss it in the slightest. Even after jacking up their rates, they will STILL be far wealthier and better off than I am.") is practically the dictionary definition of envy.
No, SG, I do not realize that. At all. I am not advocating raising taxes on the wealthy because I am envious of their wealth. I am advocating it because they are easily able to pay it, and in fact they WERE paying it until this administration came in and cut their taxes.
But of course, a selfish person can only interpret motivations on a personal level ("how does this affect ME") and can only imagine others all think the same selfish way (unless they are insane in some manner), so the only possible rationale I could have for wanting to increase taxes on the wealthy must necessarily be envy.
I may not subscribe to it simply because we are capable of paying for these wars as we go, but one can make a very solid logical case for stretching out the costs of securing peace. Generations will benefit, not just those currently paying the bills, so why burden just us with the costs?
This is the justification for bonding out the costs of infrastructure and it is reasonable to borrow for peace that benefits us for years to come.
JMO: Don't people have an obligation to earn as much as they can so as to provide the government with the resources necessary to provide for the less fortunate.
No. But of what they do make, a certain percentage must be given back to the society that enabled them to pursue their vocation.
An easily avoidable "gotcha" question. Sorry, not a Marxist.
"Current SS taxes are more than covering current SS spending."
And when that switches over in (around) 2017, where is the government going to get the money to cover the securities the government issued to itself so that it could move the money to cover items in the regular budget?
That money hasn't been saved, and hasn't been invested. The government took a loan out to itself, with the promise to pay itself in the future.
No, I expect the Federal government to provide national security in the form of an Armed Force, and to use that Armed Force in protecting things vital to our national interests.
On the other hand, I don't expect the Federal government to provide entitlements to people who can or should be able to afford it. Whatever you want to define IT as.
Oh, sure, "it's for the children," so we should automagically drop all opposition to it. Funny, I heard precious few people calling for eliminating SCHIP. Sure, I heard people saying we shouldn't expand it, I agree with that view. Especially when said expansion goes on to cover things not originally intended by the bill.
spongeworthy: Leaving aside that nobody's asking
I believe we are asking you to consider higher taxes for the wealthy...
does it ever occur to you liberals that this method of removing money from one group and giving it to others simply isn't working?
In what manner isn't it working? People pay taxes, government provides services. Needs are seen, needs are addressed. Seems to work pretty well.
Where it doesn't work is when selfish would-be tax protesters squall about how overtaxed we all are and how taxation is theft and how we shouldn't be coddling these lazy nogoodnik Welfare Queens living high on the hog on the taxpayer dollar. They make these oh-so-very-reasonable arguments about how it's unfair to be punished for their hard work and/or good fortune by the thieving IRS, how their property is being forcibly ripped away at gunpoint, how hypocritical it is of Democrats to live in big houses and advocate redistribution of other people's wealth (as if wealthy Democrats don't pay taxes also), and generally bamboozle and browbeat the public into voting against their own self-interest. Obstructionism is the reason "it doesn't work," to the extent that the system has problems.
Liberalrob
In the example I gave - society provided the same resources to Persons 1 - 4. Just because someone wants to take the easy, safe road - why does that lessen the obligation they have to the rest of society?
Dix - I think the biggest problem is the top 1%.
I'd like to see us return to pre-Bush taxation levels. At the very least, I'd like to see conservatives stop trying to push tax cuts to make the tax system less progressive.
and in fact they WERE paying it until this administration came in and cut their taxes.
Surely you must have meant "and in fact they ARE Still paying it." Right?
The last time I saw anyone expressing puzzlement over other people's failure to be self-interested enough, it was in a book titled What's the Matter with Kansas? Pretty popular with liberals, as I recall.
Yancey -
I agree that it would be better if people were more directly connected to both taxation, but also to what it buys.
In an ideal world, the budget would be decided by popular sovereignty. I expect there would be a couple years of ridiculously low taxes, followed by a realization that, yes, infrastructure and services actually cost money...
The first sign of a great writer is the willingness to blame their audience when their words fall flat.
Megan, Dems and lefties don't want to help people to feel all warm and fuzzy inside. We want to help people because, to begin with, we're actual human beings, not emotionally stunted and selfish children like you. Also, we want to help others because, as you yourself grudgingly admit, doing so benefits all of us.
You are, like too many conservatives, incapable of recognizing not everyone thinks like you.
Let's see, bridges and roads benefit the majority of people. At least, anyone who travels outside their house.
Giving hand-outs to the poor on a national scale benefits us all...
How??
Just asking...
Is this supposed to be ironic, or are you just not that great of a writer?
That money hasn't been saved, and hasn't been invested. The government took a loan out to itself, with the promise to pay itself in the future.
Yes, which, for those paying attention, means we loaned you the money for your war out of our retirement, and now you are proactively trying to stiff us on the repayment.
No, I expect the Federal government to provide national security in the form of an Armed Force, and to use that Armed Force in protecting things vital to our national interests.
Then stop being obtuse and answer the original question. Where do you propose we should get the money to pay for it? We already know the Republican answers: children and retirees.
I'm going to hazard a guess that liberalrob and brad here are simply not going to acknowledge that the entire history of transfer payments is one of miserable failure. That every increase in benefits has led to an increase in enrolees. That the correlation between the War on Poverty and the massive increase in beneficiaries is near-perfect. That the instance of single parenthood has skyrocketed.
You guys want my money--and no, I don't really buy that you're kicking in too, simply because when half the population pays nothing meaningful in income taxes the chances of bumping into a layabout on the Web are strong--to keep funding an unconstitutional money-suck just so we can watch you preen about how big-hearted you are.
No sale. Frankly, if you knew how very revealing the language you use to make your case here and elsewhere really was, you'd at least try to temper it with some concern for those of us picking up the tab. But you're proud of picking my pocket--you think you deserve a gold star simply for your advocacy.
Say what you will about those who support military adventures--freeing slaves, liberating brown people, democracy--but we don't sit around feeling all virtuous about advocacy. And present quagmires acknowledged, I'll match the results of armed intervention with your pathetic record of public relief any day.
Megan hacked up the following hairball:
"Democrats are not advocating spending their own money on the poor; they're advocating spending the money of a very small group of voters who lean Republican."
So only the tax money collected from the richest Republicans helps the poor? This doesn't come close to being factually correct. Megan imagines a financial system where certain taxes are peeled off from certain voters and directed to certain programs?
I wonder where my tax money goes to? I am a wealthy liberal. Does it only go to the Pentagon? Or maybe it bypasses them and goes straight to Raytheon? Or maybe it goes right to my neighbor who works for Raytheon?
Oh to spend a day in the dizzy brain of Jane Galt. No wonder the rightwing is so angry all the time. They make up the weirdest stuff in their own minds and imagine it is the truth!
David Walser: That's Megan's point: Republican's are painted by the media and Democrats (too often the same thing) as being petty and hard hearted when, in reality, they (may) have honest intellectual reasons for opposing a particular policy proposal.
OK, so they honestly believe selfishness and hard-heartedness are the best policy. I never said they were being dishonest when they make arguments like that. Where I do say they are being dishonest is when they claim they are being compassionate when clearly their motivation is anything but.
I don't think I missed Megan's point at all. I simply disagree with her reasoning.
To Democrats, "just writing a check" is the "easy thing to do". They do more good by "getting involved" and "changing things for the better". To Republicans, becoming involved means expending personal resources (time and money), not turning a problem over to the government. One view may be better than the other, but one's not necessarily more hard hearted than the other.
"Just writing a check" is not always the "easy thing to do;" I couldn't write a check big enough to solve the homeless problem in Dallas, let alone the myriad other problems that cry out for action nationwide. Government represents (among other things) the pooling of resources to address problems that individual action simply cannot deal with. In fact, besides being proven ineffective, relying on charitable donation to address social problems seems to me more of a "theft" of the resources of the wealthy than taxation. To fully fund all the various social programs that I think should be funded, I suspect we would request that the wealthy give up far MORE of their wealth than we currently demand in taxes! Of course, the wealthy would generally be unwilling to give enough to fully fund those programs (resulting in many unfortunate failures); and those of us in the middle class, who give individually much less to charity (because we have less discretionary income), would be total free riders on the social giving of the wealthy. I don't see any way you can rationalize that as being a better set of circumstances than using government sponsorship of social programs.
As far as one approach being more or less hard-hearted, I've already addressed that. Opposition to government sponsorship of social programs does not proceed from any other source than selfishness. Honest selfishness or not, nevertheless it's all about "I've got mine." Like Jim Rome says, when people say "it's not about the money" it's about...the money.
This made me laugh out loud. So does that mean it's morally right for me to steal from a rich person as long as I don't steal very much? After all, they won't miss it!
This goes back to my previous post about some people believing that people are entitled to the fruits of their labor and others believing that they are not.
I find it absurd that very a very small minority pays such a large portion of the total tax burden. Taxes should be spread out more than they are, not less. Otherwise, voters who pay little or no taxes will have no incentive to reduce spending... after all, it's only the money of rich people who don't even know how much they have, probably. Right?
EI
Graham: Surely you must have meant "and in fact they ARE Still paying it." Right?
Wrong. And stop calling me Shirley.
Just because someone wants to take the easy, safe road - why does that lessen the obligation they have to the rest of society?
I refer the gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago.
Keith_Indy: Giving hand-outs to the poor on a national scale benefits us all...How?
Giving housing to the homeless = less homeless.
Giving education to the uneducated = more productive workers.
And on and on. Do you really not know all these things?
Probably not. Oh well.
Wrong. And stop calling me Shirley.
hmmmm
So does that mean it's morally right for me to steal from a rich person as long as I don't steal very much?
No. I think he meant that it's morally right to steal from a small group of voters.
"Giving housing to the homeless = less homeless."
You say this. I believe you believe it. But I don't think it's true. The idea that you get more of what you subsidize is not terribly controversial. Neither is the idea that you get less of what you tax.
I don't expect you to agree with this theory, but perhaps you could consider how someone who does agree with it would perceive a plan to tax successful working citizens to subsidize unproductive ones? Do you see why they might not think your idea is so great? And they don't even need to be selfish to come to that conclusion...
This made me laugh out loud. So does that mean it's morally right for me to steal from a rich person as long as I don't steal very much?
Are you the government? No? Then I guess as a private individual a different set of morals applies to you.
Government acts as an agent of society. A thief does not.
This goes back to my previous post about some people believing that people are entitled to the fruits of their labor and others believing that they are not.
Which in turn goes back to my posts about selfishness. Round and round we go.
I am willing to bet almost any amount of money that the rightwingers so forcefully arguing for lower taxes for the rich are not themselves rich. Why, then, are they so worked up about the fairness of a progressive tax for the very rich? I suspect they read Ayn Rand and believed her.
The poor things.
Which reminds me of a favorite Dorothy Parker quote, which I believe was directed at Atlas Shrugs. "This is not a novel to be tossed aside lightly. It should be thrown with great force."
Indeed.
I think what we object to is taking money from the smart and hard working and giving it to the lazy and stupid.
Or, I figure a heart surgeon making $750k got there by working hard - well 80% hard work 20% luck. While the guy making 20k a Walmart it's probably 80% bad choices and 20% bad luck.
I think brad and liberalrob think those numbers are reversed.
Some people rich and poor genuinely think that people should care for themselves as a general rule.
This has nothing to do with being greedy or not. Many people believe in self reliance and will not take government aid even if offered
This describes my family. Some are poor, some are middle class, some are rich now but were poor before. They all pretty much are against wealth transfers as a policy.
Right or wrong it has little to do with material self interest. And more with a general feeling about the role of government (particularly federal) in society.
In fact I think it has been shown in studies that people seldom vote based how it affects them and more on how they think society should operate.
The idea that you get more of what you subsidize is not terribly controversial. Neither is the idea that you get less of what you tax.
It is controversial with me. I disbelieve. I laugh at Laffer. I think modern economics is off on a dangerous track. It's like trying to predict the weather 50 years ago, when tools were primitive and models practically nonexistent.
perhaps you could consider how someone who does agree with it would perceive a plan to tax successful working citizens to subsidize unproductive ones?
Sure, but I see it as a convenient excuse.
Excuse me for sounding naive, but what is it with commenters who can't resist epithets in a vain attempt to discredit Megan(hairballs, juvenile, selfish, etc.) while simultaneously confusing "lean republican" with "100% republican" or making sweeping undefensible generalizations such as "Opposition to government sponsorship of social programs does not proceed from any other source than selfishness." ? Why is it taking so long to clear out the..er..Dreck from this new Galt home?
Jmo: I think what we object to is taking money from the smart and hard working and giving it to the lazy and stupid.
Which is Social Darwinism.
I think brad and liberalrob think those numbers are reversed.
No, I just don't see "lazy and stupid" as the correct way to characterize the poor (or even any significant percentage of them); nor do I agree that one must make 80% bad choices to wind up working at Wal-Mart. And regardless of whether one is lazy or stupid or makes poor choices or is unlucky, people in poverty should not be abandoned to their own devices.
Giacometti wrote: I am willing to bet almost any amount of money that the rightwingers so forcefully arguing for lower taxes for the rich are not themselves rich. Why, then, are they so worked up about the fairness of a progressive tax for the very rich? I suspect they read Ayn Rand and believed her. The poor things. Which reminds me of a favorite Dorothy Parker quote, which I believe was directed at Atlas Shrugs. "This is not a novel to be tossed aside lightly. It should be thrown with great force." Indeed.
Irony hath dealt thee a cruel hand, knave. You wear the same name as a sculptor best known for elongated, distorted images which were ultimately a frustration even to him, yet which he claimed to have arrived at from his own natural perceptions of reality.
Incidentally, he lived only into his sixty-fifth year. Keep a close eye on your respiratory and pulmonary health, eh?
I don't have a blog for Teh Atlantic, so I'm clearly not a great writer.
And, obviously, you'll never be poor, Keith, so why would you worry?
sweeping undefensible generalizations such as "Opposition to government sponsorship of social programs does not proceed from any other source than selfishness."
I think it's highly defensible, and I've defended it.
Why is it taking so long to clear out the..er..Dreck from this new Galt home?
Is that what you want, an echo chamber?
"I am willing to bet almost any amount of money that the rightwingers so forcefully arguing for lower taxes for the rich are not themselves rich. Why, then, are they so worked up about the fairness of a progressive tax for the very rich? I suspect they read Ayn Rand and believed her."
Yes, the famous working-class Objectivists. I just had my car serviced by a guy who argued my bill from first principles with "existence exists - but your transmission no longer does". He also praised me for my virtuous selfishness. He lives next door to the single mom who thinks society should be fashioned after Plato's ideas and on the street where you will find a vagrant declaring himself a noble savage.
Well, Ok, the Rousseau part is true.
(*no, humor-impaired people, Rand doesn't belong in the curriculum with these guys, although I'd rather live in her world than theirs)
I missed where you defended it, although it is far too sweeping to comprehensively defend. How, pray tell, did you deal with objections to contraception funding? School curricula and sports programs? long-term welfare payments? the prescription drug plan? School busing? Did you define "Social Programs" in some novel, circular, true scotsman-like way as "income transfers to poor people that keep incentives properly aligned, are perfectly efficient and are completely ethically uncontroversial"?
Not an echo chamber, a more careful response, free of intentional misreading and name-calling. Simple.
I don't understand Rob; if selfishness is the *only* explanation of anti-tax agitation, how do you account for libertarian journalists and policy wonks living on salaries in the low five digits who will in all probability never break $100K? What is their selfish interest? It's not like lowering taxes would make their salaries go up; surely rich people donate more to institutions that want lower taxes when taxes are high?
Which reminds me of a favorite Dorothy Parker quote
I like this one from Moses Hadas, courtesy of 1,911 Best Things Anybody Ever Said:
"This book fills a much-needed gap."
Perhaps, Megan, because folk like you largely have careers in order to provide the wealthy with lullabies to soothe their tortured, vestigial, consciences?
They do kinda tend to own the journals and fund the think tanks that write the likes of you checks.
if selfishness is the *only* explanation of anti-tax agitation, how do you account for libertarian journalists and policy wonks living on salaries in the low five digits who will in all probability never break $100K? What is their selfish interest?
It is the belief that some day (soon!) they will join the ranks of the elite millionaire pundit class; at which time, having achieved wealth, they do not want to be obligated to give any part of it (or as small a part as possible) back to the society in which they have succeeded. Or if they do not hold out such a hope, they have been brainwashed (willingly or not) into believing in a philosophy that does not serve not only their own self-interest, but that of society as a whole. There is no other explanation than that, once you strip away all the obfuscatory language.
To use the language of gambling, you are betting on the "come." The odds are against you, yet you persist in playing the game; because maybe, just maybe, you'll be the one to win.
And of course there is the raw selfishness of simply not wanting to see your money go to taxes. But I assume you meant a principled objection.
I missed where you defended it
Welcome to the party, Dreck, I've been defending the underpinnings for days (maybe weeks now). The explicit "selfishness" angle I just started to use in this thread, however.
How, pray tell, did you deal with objections to contraception funding?
Moralists insisting on everyone living by the objector's own morality. Selfish.
School curricula and sports programs?
See above, if I understand you correctly (Intelligent Design Creationism, no Title IX).
long-term welfare payments?
Welfare Queens! I refer the gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago.
the prescription drug plan?
Written by Big Pharma in their own selfish interest.
School busing?
Racists objecting to their children rubbing shoulders with the Others. Selfish.
Did you define "Social Programs" in some novel, circular, true scotsman-like way as "income transfers to poor people that keep incentives properly aligned, are perfectly efficient and are completely ethically uncontroversial"?
Scotsman-like? No, I never said that. I did say they were preferable to no program at all, which seems to be the preference of the objectors.
i love the unbridgeable divide between the "it's unfair to tax people at different rates" camp and the "it's unfair people make different amounts of money" camp.
LR, you are generalizing from specific 'flaws' in specific arguments to the ridiculous proposition that *all* opposition to social programs is selfish. Furthermore you have an alarming tendency towards 'type M' arguments. You seem to understand everyone's motives.
So if someone believes every sperm needs to be protected, then they are making a "selfish" argument? By your logic we shouldn't outlaw murder - it's "selfish".
I searched your 'welfare queen' argument above and it is more of the same. A cartoon characterization of opponents does not prove that none of them believe incentives mattter in social policy, or that money is wasted in a government program to the detriment of the recipients. (btw, was Bill Clinton 'selfish' in adopting this view?)
"No True Scotsman" is a logical fallacy I suggest you look up. Even when you tackle this you generalize that opponents of a social program "prefer no program at all". Since much of this started with SCHIP, shall we acknowledge the argument was about how much to *expand* the existing program?
People who object to their children being sent 40 minutes away for school - "selfish", spending government money on school sports is inappropriate - "selfish", government shouldn't fund the arts through NEA or NEH, selfish, govt shouldn't provide farm subsidies, selfish, selfish, selfish!
It's very convenient to argue that everyone who actually tries to prioritize government spending is evil. Among other things, it is a shortcut to a position on any issue. You wouldn't let anyone on the right get away with it. A little introspection is called for.
Rob,
I have a (hopefully) less loaded question for you. What do you believe the highest marginal tax rate should be, say on earnings above $200,000 per year?
Myself, I'd be uncomfortable with more than 30%, but I'd be curious to hear your (and other commenters', if anyone is still reading the thread) response.
Disclaimer of financial interest: I'm a biologist, which means that if I am successful beyond my wildest dreams, I may someday make it into the second highest tax bracket. I knew this going in.
I have a (hopefully) less loaded question for you. What do you believe the highest marginal tax rate should be, say on earnings above $200,000 per year?
90%. Hey, you asked.
On 200k, 50% would still leave you comfortably ahead of me at 60k pre-tax. 35% is far too low.
LR, you are generalizing from specific 'flaws' in specific arguments to the ridiculous proposition that *all* opposition to social programs is selfish.
I don't believe that proposition is ridiculous at all. No more ridiculous than claiming that the primary motivation ascribed to people in the capitalist system is greed. In my experience, people's objections to programs like S-CHIP are based ultimately on the proposition that they should not be forced to contribute their resources toward the assistance of the less-fortunate. I know no other way to characterize that than "selfish." If you find that "ridiculous" then explain to me how it is not selfish.
Furthermore you have an alarming tendency towards 'type M' arguments.
I am not a logician. I am just a liberal with opinions. I have no idea what a "type M" argument is. The only Scotsman I know is a guy I worked with a few years back.
A cartoon characterization of opponents does not prove that none of them believe incentives mattter in social policy, or that money is wasted in a government program to the detriment of the recipients. (btw, was Bill Clinton 'selfish' in adopting this view?)
I'm being called an absurd liberal who holds ridiculous positions, and I'm the one making cartoon characterizations?
They're not interested in "incentives in social policy." Their agenda is to terminate the program, in this case by reducing the number of people who qualify for assistance because they are unable to meet the "incentive." Bill Clinton was not trying to terminate the program; he was trying to redefine the program from a straight handout to assistance in retraining and finding work, but conservatives (who controlled Congress) insisted on a 5-year limit to assistance, after which time unsuccessful recipients would be on their own.
So if someone believes every sperm needs to be protected, then they are making a "selfish" argument?
I don't think that's quite the argument they're making. But yes, strip away the verbiage and get down to the basic principles, and it will be that their personal moral code should be the law of the land. Anything else offends their delicate sensibilities.
Even when you tackle this you generalize that opponents of a social program "prefer no program at all".
Don't they? I see little evidence to the contrary. All the talk on here is about how "taxation is theft" and "Americans are overtaxed" and "the Frosts should have taken crummy jobs so they could get insurance for their kids, why should *I* have to subsidize them." Doesn't exactly sound like stalwart advocates of the S-CHIP program, or of government social programs in general.
Since much of this started with SCHIP, shall we acknowledge the argument was about how much to *expand* the existing program?
My understanding was that the Bush proposal was to freeze the program at current levels, which with increasing costs would effectively be a cut.
selfish, selfish, selfish!
Yep.
It's very convenient to argue that everyone who actually tries to prioritize government spending is evil.
They're not trying to "prioritize" government spending. They're trying to end it, one program at a time.
A little introspection is called for.
I agree. What's wrong with you people?
It's like we should think of distributions as if we didn't know who we were, or something. I read that in a book once.
Daniel still has the best post on the thread.
One point I don't think has been made yet: for many liberals, anyone who was politically aware before the Bush tax cuts basically, part of the reason we're only arguing for raising taxes on the top of the income distribution is that we feel those are the taxes that were cut too far before. We don't accept the legitimacy of the current starting point. Most liberal discourse you'll hear refers to "going back to the '90s". From our point of view, all the large deficits from 2001-6 represented rich people taking government money for themselves. For us, it's not about raising taxes; it's about restoring them to normal levels. Sure you can say there's no such thing as a "normal" level, but if you've been part of the debate over the last 10 years -- and you have -- then you know that the current levels were set as part of a series of claims which were false: that the cuts would not eliminate the budget surplus; that most of the money would go to the poor and middle class; and so on.
This is where Krugman gets his anger from: for him, the tax situation is part of a narrative that began when he looked at Bush's tax cut proposals in 1999 and realized the numbers were cooked, dishonest to a degree previously unacceptable in political discourse. So if liberals are mainly arguing for other people to pay more in taxes, it's because liberals feel those other people have taken a lot of tax money in the past 7 years under false pretenses.
It also still needs to keep being repeated that tax distribution in the US is extremely flat; basically everyone pays between the high teens and the mid-20s, except for the lowest quintile.
Second, the government doesn't "ask" people to give up their own resources. It confiscates their own resources by force. And that is unfair.
You're the one being selfish. The rich are just asking to be left alone; you want to use guns to force the rich to fund your pet projects. But you're squeamish enough that you want to pretend that by getting some group of people you call the "government" to use guns, rather than doing it personally, that you're doing something different.
You don't hear left wingers arguing that property is theft any more, but you still hear conservatives like David N arguing that taxes are tyranny. That's the fundamental imbalance in the political landscape.
90% on income over $200k is letting the rich off way too easy. Who cares if it isn't good for the economy? The import thing is to keep income disparity low.
We should tax it at least to 98%. Who needs a million dollars a year to live? They can get by with $50k like the middle-class does. Besides they just waste that extra money on jewelry and yachts and fancy food.
...basically everyone pays between the high teens and the mid-20s, except for the lowest quintile.
Brooksfoe, I always enjoy reading your comments, but this threw me. Huh? You've lost your mind on this. That number certainly doesn't apply to me or my partner. I'd love to have a tax bite in the mid-20s . The top federal marginal rate, alone, is 35%. After State, NYC, sales, and property taxes.....I do not dare calculate the percentage as it's too early to get pissed off.
Please, fact checking, please.
Research has found that people feel good about their own position based on how it compares to others around them. It has also found that people will often sacrifice their own success to keep someone else from winning bigger.
The liberals in this thread demonstrate this perfectly. They are more focused on taxing the rich than on helping the poor. They are obsessed with making sure everyone pays their fair share of taxes rather than making sure people have the the tools to succeed.
Personally, I want poor people to be not poor anymore. I'd like them to succeed. I don't think that handouts help them in that regard. Programs that give people money take some of their dignity. There are other ways to help the poor that would do them more good. I'm okay with taxing the rich as needed to keep people from dying in the streets from lack of food or shelter but only as needed. I really don't care how successful or rich other people are. Okay, I admit to a certain amount of envy, but I try not to give in to that.
EI
In all fairness to Brooksfoe, I assumed that he was referring to the TOTAL tax bite, not the marginal rate. He's still too low. Our total federal tax bite is around 29%, with a marginal rate of around 35%; however that doesn't count FICA, which adds about 8% but is capped as far as marginal rates go to about 2% (no cap on the Medicare portion). Our state income tax bite is probably around 4%, with a marginal rate of close to 8%. Property taxes are around 3%. That's 41% right there, absolute rate, not marginal, even without considering sales taxes, cable TV taxes, cell phone taxes, etc.
That's a lot to pay in taxes, expecially when I don't see a lot of government money being used on my behalf. The military is underfunded, as are the police and firemen, roads and bridges are not kept repaired properly, etc. A large percentage of my tax money goes to feel-good programs that don't work as advertised, running the gamut from the War on Drugs to all sorts of welfare programs that subsidize people to keep living in high cost areas where they can take the lower-wage jobs to benefit the higher-paid workers. Over 15 years ago, the average person on welfare in NYC brought in over $41K in tax-free benefits. That's just not right.
Call it selfishness if you want to, but in my worldview, I call it believing that people have primary responsibility for their own care. Secondary responsibility devolves on the extended family. Tertiary responsibilty devolves on local, state, and federal government to provide ONLY THE BARE MINIMUM of assistance to keep people from starving, living without shelter, etc.
It's a separate responsibilty to ensure that people have the education and/or training to become productive members of society. We spend a lot of money each year to educate children, but we spend a mere pittance to educate adults that made it through the system without sufficient learning--in many cases because the current education system lacks the resources to teach the bottom 20% effectively. I've spent 20% of my adult life (plus money) with an organization devoted to developing adult literacy--Literacy Volunteers of America, now part of ProLiteracy. We are a private charity wholly dependent on volunteer tutors, and we are the ONLY agency who will (1) teach in a small group or one-on-one setting, and/or (2) teach reading below the 5th grade reading level. The state certainly doesn't. We believe in teaching a person to fish so they can feed themselves; we don't believe in handing fish out to people who should be catching fish on their own.
Too many assisatnce programs simply give people fish, and that's what a lot of people object to. It's not really about selfishness.
liberalrob is worse than selfish. His class envy leads directly to the Gulag, the Cultural Revolution and the Killing Fields. He looks down others, but mistakes his perch for the moral high ground. it's a stack of 100 million corpses.
Given the well-established historical track record of his preferred policies, there's no good faith excuse for continuing to propose them. He is just plain evil.
(I can see why you assert that everyone who disagrees with you is not just wrong, they're evil. This is fun.)
No kidding.
Once again, identifying one argument as selfish does not make all arguments selfish. Generalizing. Which is why I defined it for you in the following sentence - classifying and characterizing arguments based on your own subjective perceptions of their motivation. Argument to motive. As for True Scotsman, hang on a sec...Not by me you aren't. I'm calling your arguments about opposition to social programs poorly prepared, vastly over-generalized, uncompelling and illogical.
I could just as easily say he wasn't interested in reforming, but terminating. He was absolutely ready to shrink the direct transfers. If you can speculate and generalize as to the opposition motive, so can I.It doesn't matter what argument "they" are making, you said that *any* argument was selfish.
Who is this "they", kemosabe? I notice you have failed to think about the extreme I offered. Opposition to contraceptives is normative, as is the directive we should not kill people, eat people, claustrate girls, etc. In each case we make our personal code the law of the land. My point is not to defend or condemn those sorts of norms (which I would) but to suggest that motives for these things can vary from strict "selfishness" to other motivations about how society should function.
Very few people here think taxation is theft (although, like calling Social Security a ponzi scheme, we have to acknowledge that the mechanism is the same, but the morality and viability are different). But once again you are characterizing arguments with a very broad brush.$5 billion more.
Ann Coulter famously said "[Liberals] want to take more of our money, kill babies and discriminate on the basis of race." Unfortunately, this is equivalent to, if more extreme than, your line of argument. As you, she has a complete understanding of her opponents motivation, which can be characterized with simple undesireable outcomes, and no further discussion is necessary.
The No True Scotsman fallacy is exemplified as follows in Wikipedia:
The first fault in your argument is that you overgeneralize. The second is that you define 'social programs', by definition, as efficient, constructive and moral ("a true scotsman"). Opposition to "social programs' is therefore evil, Q.E.D. (abortion kills babies, killing babies is evil, sponsors of abortion are evil...)
I suppose you will take the Coulter reference as an epithet, but I still think I got through without one.
liberalrob is worse than selfish. His class envy
It literally doesn't matter what I say, does it? I can tell you that it's not envy a bazillion times, and explain to you why it's not, and you'll just come back with how envious I am. What is your basis for declaring that I am envious?
He is just plain evil.
I suppose I should change my online nick to Manservant Hecubus:
http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=387022
SG is doing what I did with the Ann Coulter reference, taking your style of argument, boiling it down and posing it from the other side.
At least I hope so. Actually I'm sure. The last remark (gee this is fun..) gives it away. He's imitating you.
You are clearly a decent sort, but I don't think you see how your line of argument works.
Once again, identifying one argument as selfish does not make all arguments selfish. Generalizing.
But when that generalization is accurate, it is no less true for being a generalization. So explain to me how my generalization is inaccurate. Are there really any arguments against social programs that don't boil down to selfishness? I haven't seen any yet.
Which is why I defined it for you in the following sentence - classifying and characterizing arguments based on your own subjective perceptions of their motivation. Argument to motive.
And what's wrong with that? Are you contending that policy is not made based on people's motives? As far as "subjective perceptions of their motivation," I give you SG as exhibit A and say sauce for the goose.
I'm calling your arguments about opposition to social programs poorly prepared, vastly over-generalized, uncompelling and illogical.
Fine. I call yours the same. Plus being ultimately selfish and bad policy.
Very few people here think taxation is theft
They sure seem to make up a large proportion of the commentariat here.
$5 billion more.
Not $5 billion more, $5 billion TOTAL over 5 years. According to the CBO, that would underfund the program by several billion over that time.
http://www.cbpp.org/3-13-07health.htm
As you, she has a complete understanding of her opponents motivation, which can be characterized with simple undesireable outcomes, and no further discussion is necessary.
On the contrary, further discussion is absolutely necessary. I want to hear how opponents of government spending on social programs justify their opposition in terms other than selfish hoarding of resources. Prove me wrong.
Oh, I suppose they could genuinely believe that people should be completely responsible for their own situation, and that government support was some kind of moral hazard. But that too is based on selfishness, from my perspective.
The first fault in your argument is that you overgeneralize.
Are we starting over again? Are not the opponents of social programs also overgeneralizing?
The second is that you define 'social programs', by definition, as efficient, constructive and moral ("a true scotsman").
While opponents define them as inefficient, destructive and immoral. (An untrue Scotsman?) Why am I not allowed to defend social programs on my own terms?
Opposition to "social programs' is therefore evil, Q.E.D. (abortion kills babies, killing babies is evil, sponsors of abortion are evil...)
Not evil. Why is everything good or evil? I'm saying it's misguided, ill-considered, bad policy.
Likewise, liberalrob, when we keep telling you that our opposition to high taxes and entitlement programs doesn't come from selfishness. We tell you a bazillion times, and explain to why it's not, and you'll just come back with how selfish we are.
I suppose that I should be pleased that modern-day socialists at least water down their proposals...
EI
I don't see how this is a fallacy. Just because someone is from Scotland does not necessarily mean they are a "true" scotsman. I am from Louisiana, born and raised in the Acadiana region. People from Acadiana are referred to as "Cajuns," but if you were to point out that no true Cajun did something I did, it would not be a fallacy because I am not a "true" Cajun (both parents are from Kansas). The fallacy relies on assumptions not in evidence, which is that Angus is in fact a true Scotsman in every sense of the term "true."
That's why the example uses sugar on porridge, not ancestry.
Again, stop digging Ann.
We tell you a bazillion times, and explain to why it's not
And every time it's "taxation is theft", or "social programs are a moral hazard," or "why should I be asked to subsidize their poor choices." Also popular is the a priori assumption that any government program is inherently inefficient and wasteful, which if you track THAT back to its source comes down to "I don't trust bureaucrats to spend my money wisely, so why should I give them any." (And that's the *charitable* case; equally as often it's "why should I give money to subsidize causes I don't believe in.")
I think I have a sound basis for believing in my selfishness theory. I haven't heard the reasoning behind why I am envious of the rich, just the accusation.
Again, stop digging Ann.
I'm not.
Ann Coulter also advocated killing liberals, blowing up the New York Times editorial offices, and starting a new Crusade against the Islamic world. I don't think I've gone quite that far. So don't take one of Coulter's less-offensive statements and declare that I am therefore comparable to Ann Coulter.
Yes, that would be demonizing, overgeneralizing, and labeling many by the sentiments of a few wouldn't it? Not to mention defining Coulterism to suit my argument.
My apologies. Has someone else been doing that on this thread?
Rob,
It's not so much that you're envious of the rich, as that you're happy to see them taken down a peg. I believe you when you say that it is not envy that drives this, but it is clear that you would like the state to take more of their money because you believe that reducing their income to be more in line with the median is a moral good in and of itself.
This seems to be the fundamental point of disagreement, because most of us liberarianish posters believe that letting people keep the money that they earned is a moral good in and of itself.
We don't share (and speaking for myself, have trouble understanding) the motivations behind your radical egalitarianism, while you don't share (and apparently don't believe in) a moral commitment to preserving the sanctity of private property.
Try to understand that this is (to me anyway), a question of free will. That has to include the freedom to make mistakes and (yes) to be selfish with the fruits of your labor because otherwise it isn't really freedom at all. For similar reasons, I support the right of David Irving to say stupid things about the holocaust. I'm not in favor of selfishness (and certainly not of holocaust denial), but I'm even less in favor of using the power of the state to prevent it.
We can get into the whole business of the social contract, and what services, exactly, it is the state's duty to provide to its citizens some other time. But when it comes to deciding how to fund the state, it is quite clear that we disagree vehemently about what the proper moral considerations are.
What is your basis for declaring that I am envious?
Rob, and other redistributionists like him, are envious because they would like to over tax the rich. They would like to over tax the rich because they are envious. What other possible reason could there be?
It's all very clear.
Bo:
No, I expect the Federal government to provide national security in the form of an Armed Force, and to use that Armed Force in protecting things vital to our national interests.
Then stop being obtuse and answer the original question. Where do you propose we should get the money to pay for it? We already know the Republican answers: children and retirees.
What, we're going to make children and retirees pay for the national defense???
This is one of the typical liberal tricks in budgetary discussions: First, cutting give-aways to a group becomes "taking money from them", and next, not raising the give-away as much as the liberal wants is also "taking" from them.
liberalrob:
You want to take 9 out of every 10 dollars from the rich. Your justification is not some utilitarian argument about how the money could be better used; it was "50% would still leave you comfortably ahead of me at 60k pre-tax".
Catch that? Even 50% wouldn't be sufficient as that would still leave people comfortably ahead of you. You want a rate that doesn't allow others to be ahead of you.
According to Thomas Aquinas, "Charity rejoices in our neighbor's good, while envy grieves over it".
Face it, you're envious. It's written by your hand.
The essence of the "True Scotsman" fallacy is the constant redefining of a True Scotsman. The point of the example is that you can't disprove the initial statement (No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge) because the rebuttal is always that whoever you bring up as an example is automatically not a True Scotsman.
Many here are arguing that social programs that don't work shouldn't be continued. The problem is that you (liberalrob) seem to take it as a given that social programs work.
There are two arguments against many social programs and entitlements. The pure, hardcore libertarian one is that it's immoral to take one person's property and give it to another. The other argument (the conservative argument?) is that many social programs and entitlement programs don't actually benefit society or even the individuals they purport to help in the long run. Or they hurt more than they help.
Neither argument is really about selfishness, though you can, of course, frame them that way if you like. But your arguments about taxing the rich because they don't need all that money can just as easily be framed as being about your envy of those who are rich. Just because you can say it that way, doesn't make it so.
But it's easier for you to reframe the arguments you don't like into being about selfishness than to actually address them...
EI
Last shots at making myself understood:
SG: You want to take 9 out of every 10 dollars from the rich.
Which we did do in the past (marginally, not 90% of ALL income, just the last dollar). Somehow the Republic did not fall. And my literal word was 50%; but both figures were just pulled out of the air. I'm not prepared to make a definitive statement on where the top marginal tax rate should be; I'm not an economist (just an evil liberal). If I were in the position of having to decide that, I would want to set it at the level required to finance the government spending desired (i.e. where the budget would balance). I don't have all the facts at hand to make that decision; but my gut tells me it could be a lot higher than it currently is.
Your justification is not some utilitarian argument about how the money could be better used
Actually, it is. What I wrote was in response to the accusation that I was merely envious of the wealthy. My point (which you studiously ignore and cannot seem to derive without being beaten over the head with it) was that even at the higher marginal rates the wealthy would STILL be quite a bit wealthier than I, so if I was motivated by envy and desired to bring them down to my level, merely raising the marginal tax rate would be a particularly poor means of satisfying my enviousness.
You want a rate that doesn't allow others to be ahead of you.
I hope you now see that I want no such thing.
(My prediction is that you will now say that I am just saying this to cover myself, that in actuality I am stupidly envious and somehow think raising marginal rates will drag the wealthy back down to my level. Or that this is just self-delusion on my part. Whatever.)
EI: The problem is that you (liberalrob) seem to take it as a given that social programs work.
They do; and if they do not, they can be reformed. You may consider that "my problem" but I see that as "my feature."
Neither argument is really about selfishness, though you can, of course, frame them that way if you like.
I do like; because I happen to think it is the truth, and I have explained why. I still haven't heard an explanation of why my desire to raise marginal tax rates is based on envy.
But your arguments about taxing the rich because they don't need all that money can just as easily be framed as being about your envy of those who are rich. Just because you can say it that way, doesn't make it so.
If I am mischaracterizing the arguments of social program opponents I expect it to be made clear beyond simply asserting it. You have as much of a platform as I do; make your points and move on. If you want to engage in an in-depth discussion of why you think my characterizations are wrong, I would be ecstatic. If all you want to do is get into a name-calling contest ("you're selfish!" "well, you're envious!") I don't think we're going to get anywhere.
If I am mischaracterizing the arguments of social program opponents I expect it to be made clear beyond simply asserting it
But he did Rob! This is truly amazing!
You address this:
The problem is that you (liberalrob) seem to take it as a given that social programs work.
Then address this:
Neither argument is really about selfishness, though you can, of course, frame them that way if you like.
Did you really miss the part in between? You know, the subject of the phrase "Neither argument?"
He just kept coming back for more. And he loved it!
I think I may have a glimmer of what is going on.
The problem is that you (liberalrob) seem to take it as a given that social programs work.
Then address this:
Neither argument is really about selfishness, though you can, of course, frame them that way if you like.
Did you really miss the part in between? You know, the subject of the phrase "Neither argument?"
No, I didn't miss the part in between. Since I had already responded to those concepts in other responses (or at least I think I did), I felt no need to recapitulate them for EI. That's how I discuss things on message boards. If you don't approach it that way, you wind up with 36 levels of replies and replies-to-replies and it's an unreadable mess (especially in blogs like this with narrow columns).
Is it that which is possibly confusing you?
liberalrob, you have not demonstrated that you are not motivated by envy, only asserted it. If you had some compelling argument that your motives were pure, than surely you would present it. Your failure to do so only confirms your wickedness, whereas my virtue is clear for all good hearted and clear thinking people to see.
No Rob, you've asserted that they work without evidence, you haven't demonstrated their efficacy. But wait, this gets better! Their efficacy is logically irrelevant to your argument. All that is required to disprove your generalization is that someone oppose social programs "without selfishness" so they simply have to believe social programs don't work, or that they don't serve society in some other way, or that they violate absolute norms.
I'm fascinated by your logic and what you deem "philosophical errors" in opposition to it. Your thinking goes like this:
1) Social programs benefit society by definition, proven by assertion
2) anyone who opposes social programs must do so for selfish reasons
the succeeding postulates have been:
1) social programs do so work, therefore arguing that they don't shows you are selfish
2)Enforcing cultural or religious norms is selfish, therefore ethical or normative objections to social programs are selfish. (ironic, because your arguments are highly normative)
This is a lot like the underpants gnomes business plan.
Oh, and SG is imitating your 'logic' back to you again, in case you don't get it...again.
Ah, I see now Rob, thank you for helping me in my confusion.
Although, I kinda like it like this:
I have spoken, so it written, so it must be.
But I came here for a good argument...
Just hopping in to respond to Michael W: the figure I was quoting was from a summary of total tax, indeed, but now that it's pointed out, I'm not completely sure it included state and local tax. But it's for total tax as a percentage of all income. So you need to figure in your deductions, and then recognize that your first $15,000 or whatever after deductions is taxed at 10%, your next $10,000 or whatever at 15%, your next chunk at 22%, and so on. Then you need to note that capital gains, which represent more and more of your income as you get really rich, are taxed at 15%. Ultimately, it's not that surprising that federal tax, at least, comes out to well under 30% for all quintiles. Also, note that there is a bulge at the bottom of the top quintile where people are paying a higher percentage than the richest are.
I should really look up the stats, but can't right now. I apologize.
I think I should point something out at this time, that I've noted over the years, and that is that social programs in the United States have been administered with a punitive and patronizing hand; to call them "disempowering" is an understatement.
And as far as I can tell, this attitude goes back at least a century, and as far as I can tell, is an attitude fostered as much by "liberal reformers" as by "selfish conservatives."
So pointing out that it does not achieve the results it should without considering that the means may effect the end.
I'm a person with a patrician intellectual background and was raised with a social status above our family means because, well, self-image counts a heck of a lot more than money. It's powerful enough that money usually follows, unless luck, circumstances and one's own nature conspire against it.
In my case it was a perfect storm - and in 1981 I relocated to Canada (I'm a dual citizen) because I had a place to live there, and not here.
Well, that fell through along with my job and frankly, my sanity. Circuit breakers popped in my head in the first of what amounted to a serious of nervous breakdowns that made me unemployable.
Now, aside from those actually responsible, this was nobody's fault. There were some poor choices involved too. Unfortunately, all the other choices I had were worse. And I'm not trying to generalize my state to a more general apologia for the nobility of poverty.
So I HAVE been where I had to budget for a monthly beer. Poverty is no enhancement to nobility. However, I was rather surprised to realize (coming as I did from an intellectual tradition that, while somewhat liberal in an intellectual sense, was not liberal in a social sense at all) that everything I "knew" about the roots of poverty and poor people in general was wrong.
Canada has a robust social welfare system and I'm profoundly grateful to it. It made it possible for me to work myself out of subsidized poverty right up to the state of being self-sufficient in my poverty, save for the medical benefits my disability status entitled me to.
I would agree that in many cases, poverty can be a case of poor choices. However, you'd be surprised to find, that, aside from the open question as to what good choices were available, the sheer number of people on welfare roles who are just not capable of making good choices without some help - and they have also found that it makes sense to just make that help more generally available.
For instance, in most welfare offices in British Columbia, there were computer kiosks set up to print up resumes. And rather than limit this to welfare recipients, they just made it available to everyone, since everyone is paying for it. If you need a resume printed, and you can't afford the paper and don't have a computer, or don't know how to write an effective resume, go down to welfare.
That's just how Canada does things in general. It believes that Government should be of service to the people. And in a completely counter-intuitive way, what it ends up with is a society that is quite Libertarian from the perspective of the average citizen - with a few rather annoying exceptions here and there.
So in Canada, they have what amounts to "universally accessable welfare," a system that works well and has survived some quite conservative governments that you would think would be idiologically opposed to it. Why?
Well, I think the simplest answer is because it works so well, replacing so many other programs that, ironically enough, it would cost a great deal more to "reform it" to being closer to the American model.
It takes the place of all kinds of economic subsidies and indeed, a large part of the duties FEMA has in regional disasters. And of course, there is that stark per-capita difference in violent and property crime.
Canadians - even Conservatives - see these as good outcomes. But I think this outcome is not due to the money spent so much as how it's spent.
It's mostly due, I believe, to the unintended consequences of social welfare that is administered by a Canadian civil service that has a tradition of respect for those it meets.
Contrast that with your last encounter with a state or federal civil servant.
You see, I don't think the fact welfare doesn't work in our nation to have much to do with the things said on either side - I think it has much more to do with those who execute them.
And that problem of an arrogant, inefficient and depressingly incompetent federal establishment is pervasive. Bush has made this problem very much worse, but it's been a problem for as long as I remember and for some reason it's invisible to most of us; taken for granted as being an unavoidable reality.
Personally, I support the idea of abolishing the IRS and the Income Tax with - well, perhaps not nothing. But if Ron Paul's numbers are right, it's a tempting thought. Not so much because of the absence of the tax, but of the absence in toto of the administrative monstrosity itself and the unstated tax on all persons of the time and money we must expend proving we shouldn't be audited and hauled off to jail. Frankly, it's a giant boil on the butt of the American people, and we are simply arguing about how large it can get before it must be lanced.
I'd like to see a goods and services tax, if there must be a replacement, since then at least one can choose how much tax one will pay. Better yet, it can be largely accomplished with computers, an IT team and a janitor or two.
But I'd go further; I'd like to see most federal programs defunded save to the extent that willing citizens will support them. And I happen to think that a lot would, if asked, rather than compelled.
I happen to believe that NASA is worth investing in. Others disagree. Well, maybe if a menu of choices popped up when I paid taxes on my groceries, and I could OPT to add a penny here and a dollar there, I would.
I oppose fundamentally the idea that there is the right of any group to take money from me to support things I disagree with, or to punish me for things I have the right to do. I have no problem at all with a government that asks me if I would like to support this or that and makes it painlessly simple for me to do it.