I feel like there is an unarticulated doing/allowing issue floating around in the background in this debate. Say the U.S. Congress cuts top tax rates. Is this politics causing higher inequality? Or is this evidence of relative indifference about allowing higher inequality? The left has the tendency to characterize every policy that might allow income inequality to rise as one intended specifically to have this result. This is a lot like the right's characterizing, say, workplace safety regulation as a specific attempt to stymie the growth of small business. In each case, those opposed to a policy see its side-effects as more salient than the primary effects intended by those who favor it. Imputations of bad faith -- "you're really after the side-effect and your stated intention is garnish for malice" -- are never far behind. Having read most of the recent left-leaning literature on the politics of rising inequality, it is disconcerting to see the argument from malicious bad faith as far and away the dominant narrative. It's hard to find anyone who even tries to fairly understand the ideas behind the recent American right's preference for policies that do in fact tend to allow greater income inequality. Am I wrong to find this pathetic?
Having sat in right-wing/libertarian groups trying to convince the members that no, actually, the environmental movement isn't just faking an interest in the environment in order to further its true goal of halting/reversing economic progress, I can only say: a pox on both your houses.
The difference is, people on the left really do want a better world, whereas the traitors on the ill-named "right" want to sabotage and subvert.
It's not surprising at all that the only things they know how to do are insult their opponents and impute bad faith.
MLandJ, I hope this is the "imposter" version of yourself, otherwise it would be a pretty hilarous self-parody.
I totally agree with his and your points, and normally love Will's writing, but this post is bittersweet after this one of a few weeks back:
My first thought was "impostor," too--it feels a little wrong for some reason--but the impostors don't usually show up that fast.
I am not generally a fan of Williamson, but the quote Mike gives is probably the smartest and most astute thing I have read this year. As time goes on and we do not take action against global warming it will be come more and more clear that decisive action is not necessary or more likly that global warming is a lie. When that happens, there will be no real arguments left against freedom and the market. That will be a very sad day for a lot of people.
This is a pervasive cognative error, and you see it at all levels of human interaction. Whenever someone takes an action that affects us, we impute intent/desire to achieve that effect. Just keep telling yourself: "They're not out to get me (or help me) - they're so wrapped up in themselves they barely notice me" and you won't often go wrong.
PMS bleeds: "MLandJ, I hope this is the "imposter" version of yourself, otherwise it would be a pretty hilarous self-parody."
Perhaps it would be hilarious to the equivocating cowards in the so-called Liberal Media, whose idea of balance is to throw cowardly center-rightists against unapologetic fascists and call it "debate". I confess I should have expected such an attitude here.
And Rob Lyman is right on the second point. My impostors usually show up halfway down the thread, are never subtle, and typically cannot spell.
Sometimes with progressives it is hard to determine if someone is attempting satire/parody. Such as the MoeLarryAndJesus comment.
You "insult" and "impute bad faith" to your opponents on the "ill-named "right"" in your first sentence.
And decry those tactics in your second sentence.
I would less skeptically of the environmental movement's motives if they would practice what they preach.
See Arianna Huffington's, Al Gore's and Laurie David's carbon Footprints.
Or Ezra Klein's vacations (from his bloggingheads diavlog) in Brazil and Israel.
...in order to further its true goal of halting/reversing economic progress, I can only say: a pox on both your houses.
You're just saying that because you have an infant vaccination agenda.
Yes, both of the "ML&J" posts above were written by impostors.
As for rising income inequality, I very much think it is an actual goal of the Dumbya wing of the right. If that seems "leftist," so be it. But that wing has its roots in hatred of the New Deal and Roosevelt's so-called "betrayal of his class."
Dumbya wants a "better world," too. He just has a different definition of that world than decent people do. In his better world torture is okay when he says it is, for instance.
My impostors usually show up halfway down the thread, are never subtle, and typically cannot spell.
Aha! That's what feels wrong about the first comment. It's less subtle that what we have come to expect from MLaJ, or at least the version of MLaJ that I have decided is the "real" one.
We expect him to call the Bushpigs corrupt fascist morons, but to say the right only wants to "sabotage and subvert" seems to me to be out of character. A little more extremist than I would have expected.
The 12:33 post is an impostor. I'm surprised to see them so early in the thread, and making essentially the same point as I made in my first post.
Yes, Dumbya's definition of a "better" world would make any civilized human being sick. Indeed, it already has, which is why the Bushpigs are going to be in for quite a shock when their man McWalkingCorpse loses in the coming landslide.
I didn't even think it was controversial that the political right wanted the investor class to have more money. They say so often enough, and I take them at their word.
But it doesn't end there. They don't want that class to blow all the money on gold-plated dildos and diamond-encrusted iPods. They want them to INVEST and create jobs and wealth in society at large.
Even the real estate boom, stupid as it was, created jobs. Imagine if we could get back to seeing people put their money into productive investments. Somehow I doubt that everything has been invented already.
Why is income inequality a bad thing? Poverty is bad, sure, but inequality doesn't imply poverty.
Rob Lyman, I said "both" of the first two posts were impostors, so that includes the one you quoted.
Re: Why is income inequality a bad thing?
Some income inequality is necessary, to power economic activity. I have never seen anyone, not even a committed Marxist, argue that we all should have the exact same income. Buit as with everything, there a point where "some" slides off into "too much". An excess differential in any sort of system can ruin the system: too much heat in an engine, too much voltage in an electric motor etc. Historical evidence from the fairly recent past suggests that US econopmy might actually do a bit better with somewhat less income inequality.
I said "both" of the first two posts were impostors, so that includes the one you quoted.
I didn't see that until after I had posted. But in any case, it doesn't change anything; I was trying to figure out what made the first post suspicious, and that was it.
All right, now THAT'S an interesting thing to consider (the original post) for those of us whose sympathies fall on the left-hand side of the spectrum. Nice use of the blogging medium, and the reason I come back.
JonF,
Your analogies aren't very helpful, as they don't really translate into the effect of income equality. The first assumes it is all bad and the second implies there is a minimum threshold for society to function.
What historical evidence supports lower income equality leads to more efficient economic growth? I understand that GDP data can be hard to tweeze out specific causes, but I don't think income inequality has a causal role anywhere near measurable on growth, and is more a derivative than a driver.
Can anyone who is worried about income inequality tell me how much is too much? How much is enough? How much is too low? If we are going to target policies to 'fix' it, how do we know when it is fixed? I'm fine with targeting ranges like we do for growth, inflation, interest rates and such, I'd just like information on which ones are beneficial and which ones are harmful.
A long time ago this blog - or rather Jane Galt's blog - actually had decent comments (and commentators). Not sure if this has anything to do with the Atlantic but somewhere along the line it all started to degenerate.
When that happens, there will be no real arguments left against freedom and the market. That will be a very happy day for a lot of people.
I've fixed this for you. Seriously, saying that the left would be sad to be wrong about climate change is deeply ironic, when the original complaint was that these views are insincere and merely cover for more devious views.
Honestly, as someone that worries about global warming, I would love nothing more than to look back as an old man and shake my head at how silly it all was, like a big version of the Y2K "crisis." That's quite a cheerful thought - we'll see how it actually plays out, though.
John,
I don't mean to be a jerk and you seem like a decent person with a truly honorable history of service, but, um, in the past few days you've told us:
1) Anyone who has more than one wall of books in their home is a poser. (Clearly, they couldn't have read that many books and it's inconceivable that they'd want them for any reason!) Lots of books in a home = pathetic affectation!
2) No one in a Northern city would allow themselves to be anywhere near a "poor immigrant." (You might want to try Google-ing a place called "New York City," kid. God, there's a lot for you to learn.)
3) "more likly [sic] that global warming is a lie."
There was, also, a rather sad bit of union-bashing or so I seem to recall. This from a pro-South/anti-North take, no less. You seemed to be totally ignorant of -- among many other things -- the fact that organizations such as the U.A.W. are a major reason this is a middle-class nation. (Unions like the U.A.W. were responsible for workers in your hated North enjoying such luxuries in the mid-20th century as dental plans, new cars, the ability to send their children to colleges and the ability to retire in security. This alongside -- I'm going to be real blunt now -- such bits of Northern post-war decadence as shoes for everyone and proper nutrition for all families! This while much of their less fortunate Southern brethren were mired in extreme, appalling, pathos-inspiring poverty.)
And that's just a few of your comments iff the top of my head. No doubt you've had other nuggets.
Okay, what I'm going to say is going to sting, but please take it in the right way, John.
You're young.
You seem to have a lot of energy.
You don't have to go to your grave an indignant ignorant yahoo. Truly, you don't.
Skullberg,
I do not have answers to those guestions but I will just say that relying on GDP growth when talking about inequality is not very helpful. If the vast majority of benefits of the economic growth go to a small percentage of the population, and a large portion does not see much improvement in living standards, or even ends up doing worse, then this GDP growth (by itself) is fairly useless as a measure of economic success. Note I am not saying that this is currently the case.
On a broader level GDP growth is not the end all be all goal of economic policy making. Suppose slavery was guaranteed to provide double digit growth, but society had had a large degree of inequality between wealthy slave owners and poor slaves, would that be worth it?
If you want examples, I'd mention 2:
1. High income further stratifies society, inhibits income mobility and meritocracy. Wealth will propogate itself. This may breed resentment and possibly civil unrest.
2. The wealthy will weild a disproportionate level of political power which is unhealthy in a democracy.
Paul,
I have several walls of books in my home and have read nearly all of them. There are a few pretty serious math and science books that I bought where my eyes were bigger than my brain and there are about five books waiting in queue to be read. So yes it is ok to own books you haven't read. But I was speaking more generally about people who buy books to be seen with then rather than reading them.
As far as global warming goes, I think it is a crock. It is driven by group think and careerism among scientists. It is an entirely inelegant theory that is for the most part not testable. It is in the parlance not even wrong. It has become nothing short of secular religion providing endless justification for tenure, self denial, and government spending and control. In a decade or so when the data becomes so obvious that only the most ardent acolytes can deny it, there are a lot of people who are going to feel very foolish.
MS
Both 1. and 2. assert facts not in evidence. It would be just as reasonable to assert that income inequality allows the cram to rise to the top and ask why would you want someone who can't hold down a decent job to be exerting political power?
I don't claim these are true either but they have just as much claim to legitimacy if you don't have data.
I'm certainly willing to concede that there are people who care about the environment for its own sake, but surely you'll acknowledge that many use environmentalism to advance their desire for a more "just [and] equitable", not just "sustainable" society.
These "watermelons" are green on the outside, but red on the inside.
Paul,
I would highly recomend you read a book called The Reckoning. It is a history of the US auto industry from the 50s to the 80s. I won't bore you with the details but suffice it to say that it doesn't portray the UAW in such a flattering light. The UAW did a lot, not everything but a lot, to ensure that the US auto industry was totally unprepared to compete with Japan. You might want to know something about a subject beyond leftists urban myths before you start calling people ignorent yahoos.
Don't take this the wrong way but you are old. There isn't much time left for you to read someone besides Howard Zinn. You don't have to die leftist, drunk and stupid but time is short.
MS,
" High income further stratifies society, inhibits income mobility and meritocracy. "
Is income the primary driver of that stratification, or is it a system of belife?
For example, I come from a long line of peasants stretching all the way back to the peat bogs of Ireland. We we raised to belive that the best we could hope for was a nice stable job with the government.
I had a friend in college who came from a family that had be wealthy for generations. He was raised to belive that working for anyone other than yourself was lunacy.
In his family everyone went to college then grad school, then started in a business they were interested in with the eventual goal of saving enough money to go out on their own.
Having started my own lucrative business I've come to realise that if you want to become sucessful, what he was taught was 100% spot on, and what I was taught was worthless.
I think thats oversimplifying it a bit. Obviously nobody is arguing for a tax cut in the top income bracket so that they can increase inequality. But they are arguing for it while fully aware that it is a consequence of that position. The 'implication of malice' comes not from stupidly claiming that the person is proactively pushing for inequality, but in a judgement of a person for placing inequality lower on the list of priorities than economic growth or whatever is their 'intended' 'intent'.
In the end, its that judgement that gets in the way of civil discussion - and its not easily solved. If I genuinely think that your morals are wrong or backwards, I'm less likely to think I can convince you of my view and less likely to have a good-faith discussion of the issue.
BladeDoc,
I think it all comes down to whether you think the playing field is level or not. If you think it is level than you will see income inequality as a positive sign that the talented/hard working people succeed more than the stupid and lazy. If you do not think it is level then you will conclude that income inequality is self-perpetuating. The wealthy accumulate many adantages that they can pass on to their progeny while the poor are stuck in an endless cycle of mutually reinforcing influences poverty, drugs, teenage pregnancy, and lack of education.
I think the fact that poverty and wealth tend to run for generations (there is ample evidence of that - I don't have time to look for it), makes me lean towards the second scenario.
MS,
I'm fine not using GDP as a measure here, but I'm not sure of another good way to measure whether "US econopmy[sic] might actually do a bit better" under the different conditions. GDP is generally viewed as an aggregate measure of economic performance.
Slavery is a red herring - denying people liberty for economic activity isn't a valid option. The question should be, given that the long term improvements in quality of life from growth - would we be willing to sustain high income inequality (current or higher) to buy that?
But we really aren't seeing that now, 70% of people worth $5M have been so for less then 13 year. Only 20% of the pentamillionaires got their through inheritance or passive investment.
All of these things you mention seem logical and are probably true given the right circumstances, but like the laffer curve, we aren't sure where we are on that scale and what we would need to do to move either directions.
What is disproportionate? How is that defined? Do the media wield disproportionate power? Politicians themselves? Celebrities? Journalists themselves? Talk show hosts? Greg Packer?
And since there will be discrepancies in power, how much is bad? how much is good? how do we measure it? If we're going to restrict the liberty of our citizens in violation of our 1st amendment principles, there had better be all of this backing it up.
jmo,
You better be careful otherwise the author of "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" will come after you for plagarizing. :)
I agree that attidude and values are large drivers of inequality. However, to a significant extent both are shaped by the environment in which we live. So it is a chicken and the egg kind of thing.
Paul,
I take that back above. There is no reason to be insulting even if the other person is. Why are you such a small person that you feel the need to insult someone who disagrees with you? Are you that hard up for acutal points? Are you that threatened and insecure in your views?
Paul, you shouldn't insult the other commenters. It is rude and unproductive.
MS,
Would you agree that the primary factor keeping the poor poor is their own "attitudes and values"?
What can be done to change those values?
Say the U.S. Congress cuts top tax rates. Is this politics causing higher inequality? Or is this evidence of relative indifference about allowing higher inequality? The left has the tendency to characterize every policy that might allow income inequality to rise as one intended specifically to have this result.
This is very muddled. The typical political/moral argument from the "left" is that tax cutters are indifferent to inequality, not hell-bent on increasing it. Accusations of bad faith come in when tax cutters say (a) there is no effect on inequality, (b) tax cuts don't primarily affect the mega-rich, (c) but the rich deserve it anyway, because they are smarter/harder working/saviors of civilization, (d) anyway, "the rising tide lifts all boats," etc., (e) uh, and the poor are a bunch of "lucky duckies" anyway who should quit their whining.
It's this duplicitous kettle logic that makes people think tax-cut mania might be a tad disingenuous. Whether increased inequality is an intended consequence or just a known outcome is largely irrelevant. Some people evidently think it is a feature, not a bug, but if so they should be upfront about it, rather than obfuscating with all manner of supply-side hocus pocus.
Having sat in right-wing/libertarian groups trying to convince the members that no, actually, the environmental movement isn't just faking an interest in the environment in order to further its true goal of halting/reversing economic progress,
Looked at your comment section lately? You're soaking in it.
The typical political/moral argument from the "left" is that tax cutters are indifferent to inequality, not hell-bent on increasing it.
Sounds like someone doesn't listen to the left very often.
MS:
You wrote:
"If you think it is level than you will see income inequality as a positive sign that the talented/hard working people succeed more than the stupid and lazy. If you do not think it is level then you will conclude that income inequality is self-perpetuating."
Isn't there a third way of looking at this, though (and one which I suspect is probably closer to the truth)? Specifically, can't income inequality be, at the same time, both a sign of a healthy meritocracy and a sign of a self-perpetuating cycle? In that case, the result is that the "playing field" is level enough for many people to have social mobility, but not for other groups of people. That then raises the issue of how one maintains the social mobility for the former group while still seeking to obtain it for the latter group. I would argue that the answer to this lies in the idea that the factors that would make the playing field "level" are different for each group.
I am willing to concede that, in some/many circumstances, wealth redistribution may be what is required to give someone a realistic opportunity of participating in the "meritocracy." However, in other cases, wealth redistribution may actually reduce one's opportunity of participating in the "meritocracy" because of the various disincentives it provides (i.e., it can and at least in some - though by no means all, and probably not even most - cases does foster laziness amongst recipients while disincentivizing work beyond a certain amount by potential upper bracket-earners).
How one would go about solving this dilemma is probably far beyond any human's capability. Unfortunately, politicians and ideologues on all sides seem to think they have the answer. Some conservatives and libertarians, for instance, often believe that the answer lies in part in school choice because they figure that equal access to education is the ultimate leveler of the playing field and that school choice would provide such equal access. Liberals/Progressives on the other hand often tend to believe that the answer lies in providing stronger safety nets such as welfare benefits, minimum wages, etc.
The problem is that any of these proposals is, by necessity, a one-size-fits-all approach that will, as is the case with any policy, have unintended consequences as a result. So although each approach will almost certainly benefit some unknown number of deserving individuals, it will also almost certainly hurt an unknown number of others who do not deserve that hurt*. Moreover, because of the complexity of the economy, there is both no way of knowing whether any of these approaches will do more good than harm and no way of definitively proving whether any approach actually succeeded once implemented.
Ultimately, whether you think a particular policy is likely to have net positive/negative effects is probably entirely a function of one's political philosophy since there is no real way to demonstrate these effects conclusively. Personally, I think this is a particularly strong argument for libertarianism since I think that, without any real proof of whether a policy will be a net good or a net bad, one should err on the side of liberty and freedom. BUT, I can also see how this could be a particularly strong argument for Burkean conservatism (one should err on the side of tradition and existing norms which are the result of millenia of accumulated knowledge) and for modern Progressivism (one should err on the side of change when large numbers of people are hurting under the existing system).
*Politicians and policy advocates will almost always claim that the number of those benefited is, in fact, known and is equal to the number of people who are expected to receive the outlays of the policy. They will also imply that the policy will have no unintended negative consequences. This is poppycock, since, as I said, these policies are one-size-fits-all approaches to problems that have myriad causes (and in some cases may not even be problems at all).
Jmo,
Would you agree that the primary factor keeping the poor poor is their own "attitudes and values"?
I'm not sure if it is primary or not but I supose I agree with that. But again, peoples values do not exist in a vacuum. A person growing up in an upper middle class neighborhood, with educated parents, going to a private school will have one set of values. A person growing up in a single parent home, in a neighorhood where drug use is common and education is not a high priority will have a different set of values. This is another reason why wealth is self perpetuating.
What can be done to change this? I don't think anyone has a good answer to this because changing the way people think is hard to do. Options available to policymakers are poor but recognizing that this is a problem that needs to be solved is the first step.
the environmental movement isn't just faking an interest in the environment in order to further its true goal of halting/reversing economic progress, I can only say: a pox on both your houses.
Certainly there are plenty on the left who have a deep aversion to corporations, capitalism, global trade, free markets, etc. Many of these same people see environmentalism (and global warming in particular) as a means of fighting all of the above. That doesn't mean they don't also care about the environment, but many care at least as much about advancing a leftist political and economic agenda and find environmentalism convenient. Not all environmentalists obviously. Not our host. Not me. But plenty of them.
If you want to catch a lefty environmentalist off-guard, ask them if they think it would be a good thing if a cheap, plentiful, carbon-free source of energy were suddenly invented that enabled Americans to all drive Hummers and live in McMansions in the suburbs. Watch the look on their face as they try to avoid committing a 'Kinsley Gaffe'.
Slow-cum writes: "Watch the look on their face as they try to avoid committing a 'Kinsley Gaffe'."
Nice try imputing the motives of your political opponents. The Repiglican descent into asininity continues.
"That doesn't mean they don't also care about the environment, but many care at least as much about advancing a leftist political and economic agenda and find environmentalism convenient."
If that is true, why are they so uninterested in the environmental crimes of leftists regimes? I never hear them say word one about the damage that was done to the environment by the old Soviet Union or is currently being done in places like Zimbabwe. They only seem to be interested in the environment in western capitalistic countries.
If you want to catch a lefty environmentalist off-guard, ask them if they think it would be a good thing if a cheap, plentiful, carbon-free source of energy were suddenly invented that enabled Americans to all drive Hummers and live in McMansions in the suburbs.
I don't know what to say. I think most environmentalists would say "Well, thank you! Sign me up!" In fact, I think this is the reason there is such a push towards renewables.
Now, you're right - many of these people are also concerned with both social equality, poverty, and corporate malfeasance. I mean, we are the bleeding hearts, right? And where would cheap, non-polluting energy fall on that scale?
As long as cheap means not just cheap to produce but cheap to purchase, it would certainly be a massive boon to poor families. Good there.
So, yes - cheap, nonpolluting energy powering hummers makes for a good day, not a bad one.
I think too many people are overthinking this. Sometimes a concern about the melting icecap is just a concern about the melting icecap.
Part of why liberals like policies that reduce economic inequality is that economic inequality is political inequality. The rich have more political power than the poor.
This fact differentiates accusations about inequality from similar accusations about job safety or environmentalism. If environmentalists get what they want, there is no benefit to harming their adversaries. That is not true in the rich/poor debate. While I'm sure most rich people just want to keep more of their money and don't necessarily want to hurt the poor, they do benefit from hurting the poor. When the poor are poorer they are politically weaker. This keeps them in a state less likely to be able to enact legislation that redistributes wealth.
The rich really do gain from making the poor poorer. This is very much an old-money/classist view that is rare, but I believe it is the view of our current president.
I think I am confused by your comment: do you think the president believe "[t]he rich really do gain from making the poor poorer"? Or that he is actively trying to make the poor poorer so they have less political power?
If it is the latter, I haven't seen a more obvious example of Megan's post.
"If you want to catch a lefty environmentalist off-guard, ask them if they think it would be a good thing if a cheap, plentiful, carbon-free source of energy were suddenly invented that enabled Americans to all drive Hummers and live in McMansions in the suburbs"
No flip that question around. Tell them that we can have income equality, fully socialized national healthcare, and craddle to grave welfare, but to do so would require increasing our carbon footprint.
I think most liberals really have no idea why Republicans are so in love with low marginal rates. My theory is that marxism was so obseessed with "equallity" that it was willing to make everyone worse off in order to obtain it. Conservatives saw themselves in opposition to communism and were skeptical of all policies that aimed for economic justice. In the case of top marginal rates, they were at one time to high but they weren't too high when Clinton was president. Bush's desire to lower these top rates was really just political inertia. They just show his inability to think clearly about the challenges of the current moment. McCain on the other hand is just a weak politician who felt he needed to pander to the conservative movement.
I'm sure political inertia plays a role in the desire of some Republicans, or conservatives, desire for lower marginal rates but it goes far beyond that. There is also the desire for lower taxes in general as a matter of ideology belief about what is just, and in order to reduce the impact of taxes on the economy. You could lower taxes without lowering marginal rates, for example by instituting a large number of loopholes and deductions, but this amounts to a larger impact on the economy, than simpler lower taxes would cause.
So, yes - cheap, nonpolluting energy powering hummers makes for a good day, not a bad one.
I think too many people are overthinking this. Sometimes a concern about the melting icecap is just a concern about the melting icecap.
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Read James Howard Kunstler for an example of somebody on the left who absolutely despises suburbs and Hummers and strip malls and fast food and the rest -- and is looking forward to the end of cheap, abundant energy to do away with all that. To transform American culture in a direction he -- and many others on the left -- think it should be changing anyway (even if there were no concerns about global warming or peak oil).
As long as we are trying to graple with idealogical mind twisters, how about this one - suppose AGM is actually happening? That creates several problems-
1. What we commonly think of progress and growth now actually has a terrible side effect. The entire meaning of the term now has to be rethought.
2. Since this is a truly global problem, none of the solutions lend themselves to individual action. Government(s) would necessarily have to get involved, at least by adding new taxes and creating new incentives to significantly change individual behavior.
Taxes are a social justice issue. Taxes involve the government coercively taking property that rightfully belongs to citizens and using them for its sometimes beneficial and sometimes nefarious purposes. Taxes are necessary, yes. But necessary or not it is taking something that belongs and was rightfully earned by someone else. For this reason, taxes always ought to be as low as possible.
Leftists do not look at it that way. In the leftist view a "tax cut" is no different than spending money. The government presumptively owns 100% of everything its citizens own and produces and whatever amount its citizens are allowed to keep is at the complete discretion of the government. The only issue is what effects the bottom-line. Most leftists will agree that if taxes are too high in some cases it will prevent people from working, but they only care about this as it effects the ability of the government to collect money, not out of any concern that people should be allowed to keep what they earn. Ultimately, in their view each person is 100% owned by the state.
Read James Howard Kunstler for an example of somebody on the left who absolutely despises suburbs and Hummers and strip malls and fast food and the rest -- and is looking forward to the end of cheap, abundant energy to do away with all that.
I'm unfamiliar with Kunstler (beyond wikipedia, which I just checked), so I can't really speak much about his view.
I will say that I'm not arguing that there aren't extremists - and really, in any issue, you could cherry pick people on one side or the other that have axes to grind or whose values lead them astray (here, it sounds like an aesthetic value is getting in the way of a sound approach).
I just don't think this represents the mainstream, and anyone that believes it does is doing both sides a deep disservice.
As a committed environmentalist, couple of thoughts
1) Cheap, carbon neutral power would ROCK! I would be delighted to allow everyone who chose hummers, mcmansions, etc. to have that be sustainable.
2) If offered income equality, fully socialized national healthcare, and craddle to grave welfare, but to do so would require increasing our carbon footprint, It would depend on how much the footprint increased. These seem to me to be the essential question of the day-to what extent can we provide a social safety net to people who have been left behind by the modern economy, with minimum harm to the larger economy and the environment?
3) John-at one level, you're totally right. I don't believe that people 'earn' what they make. Infusing capitalism with moral weight is one of the fundamental errors of ethics in our country. We are part of an economic and social system which rewards some behaviors and not others, but the financial reward of the marketplace doesn't imply a moral right to keep some specific percentage of your income.
StL Pastor,
100% owned by the state or 100% owned by the "social system" is a distinction without difference.
As a committed environmentalist, couple of thoughts
1) Cheap, carbon neutral power would ROCK! I would be delighted to allow everyone who chose hummers, mcmansions, etc. to have that be sustainable.
2) If offered income equality, fully socialized national healthcare, and craddle to grave welfare, but to do so would require increasing our carbon footprint, It would depend on how much the footprint increased. These seem to me to be the essential question of the day-to what extent can we provide a social safety net to people who have been left behind by the modern economy, with minimum harm to the larger economy and the environment?
3) John-at one level, you're totally right. I don't believe that people 'earn' what they make. Infusing capitalism with moral weight is one of the fundamental errors of ethics in our country. We are part of an economic and social system which rewards some behaviors and not others, but the financial reward of the marketplace doesn't imply a moral right to keep some specific percentage of your income.
John, sorry about the double post,
I don't think its 100% one way or the other-rather, a balance between the two-we are all parts of a social system which is essential for our survival, but then again, so is everyone else.
There was a time when it remained plausible to claim that tax breaks for the rich would lead to rising economic growth that would trickle down to the rest of society. Even then, such a claim had to be taken with immense skepticism because people who advocate doing something in the general interest which just so happens to disproportionately benefit them personally are on tenuous ground, and should expect to bear an extra burden of proof and to face suspicion of their motives.
Now, 25 years of data are in, and we know that tax cuts for the rich do not lead to higher incomes for poor and average folks. We know it with certainty for top marginal tax rates under 40%. Given such knowledge, when laissez-faireists attempt at this late date to claim that they desire yet further tax cuts for the rich because it will benefit the economy, the country, or Americans in general, they throw their credibility to the winds, and in a particularly damaging way because the falsehood they are propounding is a falsehood in the service of the wealthiest. They appear servile.
More generally the notion that active tax cuts for the richest represent not an active desire for income inequality but an indifference to it seems to confuse who it is here that is taking action. This is basically an epistemological war in which libertarians attempt to cast all taxation as "government action" which interferes with a pure and innocent economy in its state of nature. It's the oldest political game in the book to say that the situation you are trying to move things towards is simply the natural state of things, and it is your opponents who are trying to change everything.
Matt,
Lower taxes on the rich haven't hurt the poor either. You exhibit the classic false Marxist view that capitalism is some kind of zero sum game. The producitivty of the rich finances the big government you probably love. But, you still can't stand it that they are rich. That is envy, not policy.
Even then, such a claim had to be taken with immense skepticism because people who advocate doing something in the general interest which just so happens to disproportionately benefit them personally
As a libertarian-leaner who makes $30K a year, I love this strawman. Given that tax breaks for the rich in no way "benefit me personally" (at least directly - I tend to believe all the economic evidence that low taxes lead to higher growth, which leads to benefits for everyone), are you forced to abjure your skepticism about my belief that low taxes are generally a good thing?
"I think I am confused by your comment: do you think the president believe "[t]he rich really do gain from making the poor poorer"? Or that he is actively trying to make the poor poorer so they have less political power?
If it is the latter, I haven't seen a more obvious example of Megan's post. "
Posted by Skullberg
Let me try to illustrate.
Environmentalists and industrialists often come into conflict. There is a tendancy among industrialists to believe that environmentalists hate industry for its own sake rather than for its impact on the environment. This is silly because environmentalists have nothing to gain from hurting industry except where it harms the environment.
Megan tries to paint people with liberal taxation policies with the same brush. She claims that the rich just want to benefit themselves by getting more money. They don't want to necessarily make the poor poorer. She claims there is no benefit in making the poor poorer. So it is silly to claim they are doing so.
I am pointing out that this is simply not true. Political power is strongly linked to wealth. By making the poor poorer, their ability to enact their political agenda - which would likely include more progressive taxation - decreases. The rich don't just benefit from having more money, they also benefit politically from making the poor poorer.
Now, there are countervailing circumstances. Many of the rich are dependent upon educated workforces or consumers with disposable incomes. They don't benefit enough politically to compensate for their economic damage when the poor get poorer, so they are not included in the small niche I am talking about.
The people who have a net benefit from making the poor poorer are those with great wealth not inextricably tied to domestic industry. This group includes our current president.
Matt Stienglass
We know no such thing.
1 - Overall the poor have gotten slightly wealthier. Sure the rich have gained more than the poor, but that doesn't mean the poor are worse off.
2 - The poor are different people over time, most individuals can do better, including most individuals near the bottom, without those at the bottom in one time period doing better than those at the bottom in an earlier period. As some of the poor move up, some of the not poor move down, and some of the very poor from places like Mexico, move in to this country, doing better here than they where in Mexico, but perhaps not as well as the previous native born poor.
2 - We have not had a consistently lower tax burden for the past 25 years, tax rates have gone up and down, and other aspects of the tax code that effect how much gets paid have changed multiple times.
3 - 25 years is not a lot of data. Its a set of 25.
4 - Top marginal tax rates are not the only factor. There are many other factors. Lower tax rates benefit economic growth, which in the long run helps almost everyone, but other factors can be larger. That lower taxes tend make people in general better off than they otherwise would have been, does not mean that they necessarily make people better off than they used to be, because general tendencies don't necessarily work in each and every case, and because the tax changes may not be the largest factor over a particular time period.
In any case, even if we assume that tax cuts for the rich don't help the poor, that doesn't mean they hurt the poor. If they did nothing at all for the poor, they could still create a net benefit.