Perhaps predictibly, Ayn Rand is making a comeback on the right, with Congressmen handing out her books, and loose talk of rich people "Going Galt".
I don't think that we will see a mass exodus of productive people to secret hideouts. I look to Atlas Shrugged more for conveniently totable beach reading than an economic blueprint. What's interesting to me, though, is how many details Rand did get right--like the markets in "unfreezing" Ukrainian bank deposits, so similar to the frozen railroad bonds of Atlas Shrugged. Or the cascading and unanticipated failures, with government officials racing to slap another fix on to fix the last failing solution. If only the people in her novels had acted remotely like actual people, rather than comic book characters, I, too, would be rereading the thing now.
She was able to describe these things so well, of course, because she'd seen what an economy looked like while it was being wrecked. All of Rand's writing is dominated by the fact that she lived through the birth pangs of Soviet Russia, and saw her family's business destroyed by Lenin's ideology, and extraordinarily incompetent economic management. Her philosophy does not work, at least if by work we mean generate a framework by which a person or society can order itself. But she was actually a really very gifted observer, and she had a quite subtle understanding of how all the interconnected elements of an industrial economy fit together. It's a pity she didn't quite get how human beings worked, especially herself.
Copyright © 2010 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
I recently came back to the US after working overseas for several years, and paying no taxes. The job I returned to is gone, and it looks like I will be leaving agan. To avoid tax I will spend my free time outside the US where my dollar goes a lot farther. I would prefer to be in my own country but since liberals are systematically wrecking the economy, I can only shrug it off.
uh, call me toohey-stupid but where do Milton Friedman, Reagonomics, deregulation, and the Bush tax cuts and deficits fit in the john gestalt of recent decades? Atlas isn't shrugging, I don't think, but squirming most uncomfortably under some unexamined premises. Of all the amazing things I've seen in American public life in my 55+ years, the most amazing is how quickly and completely Republicans have forgotten they were in power for eight years.
we can never live up to the ideals of john galt and howard roark. but i don't think that dismisses the philosophy completely out of hand. you're right she was a good observer and she was an elegant writer but there are kernels of truth to her philosophy that i think many of people have found helpful in their own lives. one reason we are in this mess is lack of integrity and the one thing that her characters do have is integrity. if we all remembered that a little bit then we might be better off.
on a side note i'm not sure how totable the book is. i mean the thing is freaking 1300 pages.
Of all the amazing things I've seen in American public life in my 55+ years, the most amazing is how quickly and completely Republicans have forgotten they were in power for eight years.
Perhaps because they were only in power for six? Or did you forget Democrats retook Congress in the '06 elections. This isn't a monarchy, and we shouldn't label a party as "in power" based solely on its occupation of the White House.
You'd also have to stretch your imagination quite a bit to picture either Reagan or Friedman approving of the behavior of Congressional Republicans, or of Bush's domestic agenda.
Granted, it's been since high school that I read Ayn Rand, but as I recall, isn't her philosophy simply a more extreme version of fairly boilerplate mainstream libertarianism, the main difference being a refusal to accept the need for some very basic welfare safety nets and civic institutions meant to enforce the social contract?
And again, DIDN'T YOU USED TO CALL YOURSELF JANE GALT?
You might read Ronald Merrill's "The Ideas of Ayn Rand". He's cleaned up some of the more egregious problems with her philosophy - and at least some he fairly convincingly demonstrates were more mistatements than actual faults in her thought. Unfortunately, there are still some significant problems; at least it's an interesting read.
Two things
1. The Prescription drug benefit
2. The ownership society
If Republicans stuck to their knitting they would have said, "Elderly people who never bothered to save enough to buy medicine when they got old deserve to do without." And, "People who can't come up with 20% down for a home are obviously stupid, ignorant spendthrifts and have no business buying one."
Megan, given the press that Atlas is getting lately, and given that you used to be "Jane Galt," I'd love to hear you explain more about why you think that Rand's philosophy can't "generate a framework by which a person or society can order itself."
Her philosophy does not work, at least if by work we mean generate a framework by which a person or society can order itself.
Oh, no, it's quite easy for a person to order himself into an insufferable dickshit using Rand's philosophy.
Ditto for society, or haven't you played Bioshock?
“People are starting to feel like we’re living through the scenario that happened in ‘Atlas Shrugged,’” said Campbell. “The achievers, the people who create all the things that benefit rest of us, are going on strike. I’m seeing, at a small level, a kind of protest from the people who create jobs, the people who create wealth, who are pulling back from their ambitions because they see how they’ll be punished for them.”
Rep John Campbell
Yes, Wall Street, the bankers, the corporate elites, those innovators, those creators, those real men are going on strike against the parasites.
Yea, that's going to sell.
There is no such thing as financial innovation. There is nothing magic about money. You can't make something from nothing. You cannot expand credit exponentially and inflate asset values and call it wealth, honestly. Talent in finance is often the lot of the lazy and the crooked. It certainly deserves no above average reward and it's practitioners should be kept away from the halls of government and its Treasury more than any other group.
Absolutely nothing is more predictable than the winners concluding they are the winners because of their innate superiority. Kings always claimed their power was God given and ordained. Back in the Gilded Age the Robber Barron's widely adopted the Calvinist idea that God's select were successful on earth. How convenient. Rand just revised it and took God out of the picture. Although she probably didn't know it.
I read The Fountainhead and thought it was absolutely brilliant. Her message is to distrust government and celebrate the individual. The characters were a bit over the top, but I still enjoyed the story. The message, however, is what really resonates. Here's a quote I wrote down from the book:
"But this was pity - a complete awareness of a man without worth or hope, this sense of finality, of the not to be redeemed. There was a shame in this feeling - his own shame that he should have to pronounce such a judgment upon a man. That he should know of an emotion which contained no shred of respect, this is pity he thought, and then lifted his head in wonder. He thought that there must be something terribly wrong with a world in which this monstrous feeling was called a virtue."
I don't understand how the GOP would feel any special connection with Rand. This is the party that six years ago (to the month) was bullying anyone who questioned the Iraq War, attending clear channel sponsored rallys to drum up excitement for the war, all the while expanding the federal government's reach into our local schools and spending more money than ever thought possible.
Hardly a celebration of the individual.
Megan, I think you're missing the possibility that "going John Galt" doesn't mean that you have to completely remove yourself from the economy/society. You can do it gradually, and the effects on society can be cumulative.
I have been going John Galt for the last several years. I'm a part owner of a small company that had as many as 20 employees. We've downsized to 4 employees and I've slowly dropped my working time to about 3 days a week (my preference). Yes, my income has dropped a bit, but at the marginal tax rates my personal time more than compensates. I would estimate my after tax income has only dropped a few percent, but without the hassles, liabilities, and tax issues of so many employees (and much more free time) the tradeoff is well worthwhile to me (albeit very negative to society).
This isn't a monarchy, and we shouldn't label a party as "in power" based solely on its occupation of the White House.
It was for all intents and purposes with Bush's signing statements which said "I'll ignore X part of law if I want" The Republicans also had the power to filibuster any bill, and veto any bill effectively robbing Democrats of any real power. The Republicans also putting Democrats in the position where they had to force a disorderly withdrawal of troops by not funding them (which would have been a disaster) or funding the troops without a time line.
The Republicans were in power, we knew they were in power and were thrown out of power due to everything going to hell. Democrats have had 3 months with real power, and all of the sudden everything is their fault. All of the sudden the Republicans are worrying about individuals liberties, when they spent the last few years doing everything they could to circumvent the constitution. All of the sudden they are worrying about deficits, despite years telling us they don't matter.
There is no such thing as financial innovation. There is nothing magic about money.
Why do you assume this has anything to do with Wall Street? Tax-wise, finance people don't matter much outside NYC. However, it's not hard to envision a guy who owns a restaurant deciding to close on Sundays because the return on his time is no longer worth being away from the family.
I remember reading an article (that, sadly, I can't find on the web) in the Economist which made the case wealthy people the world over never pay more than about 25% tax on income, because at that point doing things to shelter the money you make become more important than making more money. That is true in the US, and it is also true in countries with a very high marginal tax rate like Japan and Sweden.
It was for all intents and purposes with Bush's signing statements which said "I'll ignore X part of law if I want" The Republicans also had the power to filibuster any bill, and veto any bill effectively robbing Democrats of any real power.
While you can filibuster to prevent a bill from becoming law, you can not pass a bill by filibustering. Every bill passed in the last two years, including the record-busting deficits, was a Democratic bill. You can fault Republicans for not stopping those bills through a filibuster or a veto, but pretending that the Republicans were in control is dishonest and ahistorical.
Also, if you have to have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate before your party can be considered to control the government then the Republican Party has never controlled the government.
The Republicans also putting Democrats in the position where they had to force a disorderly withdrawal of troops by not funding them (which would have been a disaster) or funding the troops without a time line.
False. The Democrats could have forced a gradual withdraw from Iraq by approving less money than Bush requested. This would have forced Bush to draw down the troop levels.
The Republicans were in power, we knew they were in power
Yes, from 2001 through 2007. If you thought they were in power after early 2007 then you're delusional.
It was for all intents and purposes with Bush's signing statements which said "I'll ignore X part of law if I want"
Which means absolutely nothing in legal or practical terms.
Megan,
You are more naive than I thought if you believe people are not already "Galting" (even though they may not actually call it that). Three examples I personally know of:
1. I recently talked to a record shop owner, who had two shops, four employees, open seven days a week. He let go all four employees, closed one shop, is only open five days a week, and reduced hours at that. Result? Almost the same take-home, and greatly reduced blood pressure.
2. The owner of a small custom stained-glass shop, where I am currently taking a class, let one employee go because the additional income she brought in was not worth the added hassle.
3. I retired from a pretty good job at the end of last year, at the age of 61. I could easily have kept working, or found another job. With pension, and social security in a few months, my gross will be considerably less. But, after taxes are taken into account, the net is not all that much less. I figured that I was working in a pretty high-stress job, for little incremental income.
By the way, I have talked to other folks in similar positions, who have run the numbers in the same way I did. Most of them realize they are knocking themselves out for a few bucks an hour, but keep going out of inertia, or a sense of duty. But if things get even worse, as I suspect they will, expect more upper-middle-income to upper-income folks to quietly drop out.
I would be interested to hear if other readers know of similar cases.
I don't understand how the GOP would feel any special connection with Rand.
This is because you suffer from the mistaken belief that everyone in the Republican Party approves of the way the party leadership behaved for the past decade or so.
I vote for Republicans because, bad as they are, Democrats are worse. That doesn't mean I have anything but contempt for most of the last ten years of Republican Party behavior.
The Republicans also had the power to filibuster any bill
This cuts both ways you know.
@Dan:
Did you ever consider the possibility that your continued support of the GOP you held in contempt ultimately enabled the Democrats to seize power with such decisiveness at this critical juncture?
I would estimate my after tax income has only dropped a few percent, but without the hassles, liabilities, and tax issues of so many employees (and much more free time) the tradeoff is well worthwhile to me (albeit very negative to society).
Oh, Ron... baby... you are living la vida mother-fucking Galt, my friend. You are doing it. You are showing the whole world that you will not stand for a slightly higher marginal tax rate. Oooo, what a rebel you are! Society wants you to work hard so it can tax just a few more of your dollars, but you're not going to listen, are you. You're your own man. No, not man. Superman. You are fucking Nietzsche's ubermensch. With your own small, underemployed business. At which you work three hours a week.
Yeah. You're teaching society a good, hard lesson, aren't you? Starving the beast.
Wait. No, you're not. You're still paying income taxes. You're still consuming shit, and paying sales tax. You're still feeding the beast. You're just not feeding the beast as much. Whoopty fucking shit, dude.
Congratulations, ron, you big preening pussy. Hey, where's your small business at? I want to burn it down for fun.
I'm going to add a few more anecdotes, in the hope that of pushing the total over that needed to become data.
Quite a few people in my line of work are taking the slow season off, and I know a few older entrepreneurs who have drastically downsized their business.
Higher taxes are probably not going to stop status-hungry single blue-state urbanites from working like slaves to make partner. That's why there's such support for high taxes in that demographic - they're interested in status, not money. Money doesn't really matter that much when no matter how much you make you've still got roommates.
It's unlikely people are going to go Suvivorman on us, which saddens me, because I love the show.
However, higher taxes are going to hit at the margin - mostly older entrepreneurs winding down their life's businesses a few years earlier, late-middle-aged people retiring early, small businessmen substituting highly-regulated labor with slightly lower-returning capital (possibly by outsourcing)
I know I certainly have made plans to travel more and work less.
First ron, now Uncle Bill is going Galt??!!! Oh, noes, how will America get by????
Seriously, do you people realize how fucking stupid you sound? Obama wants to raise the highest tax bracket to where it was in the 1990s, those dreary, depression-filled 90s, and you squeal like pig getting raped by an elephant. Oh, you're going to hire fewer employees at your crappy small business? One less janitor for your Stop 'n Go? No! Jesus, for the love of God, no! Oh, you're going to close one of your record stores? Oh, man, don't do that! Record stores are a great business model in an era of iTunes and peer-to-peer networks! I'm sure you were about to expand nationwide!
"The achievers, the people who create all the things that benefit rest of us, are going on strike."
Yes, and proud we are of all of them.
Matt B wins the thread with the excellent Lebowski reference.
@Immoralist
A. Judging by the spending Obama is proposing and his pledge to increase taxes on only the top 2 percent, taxes on that two percent are going way beyond what they were in the 90s -- above 50 percent, most likely.
B. If you haven't picked up the concept of behavior at the margins, you're just wasting your time with economics blogs. You'll never understand them and you'll just be angry and confused and profane.
@Megan
While it's certainly unlikely that any huge percentage of America's most productive people will "go Galt" -- even partially -- you already have a fair amount of anecdotal information right here to suggest this will matter at the margin.
If I were a wealthy 55-year-old in Manhattan, I might seriously think about early retirement rather than paying 60 percent of my income in federal, state and city taxes.
Also, and probably more importantly, if I were a brilliant scientist or engineer from the third world, rising tax rates would certainly alter my calculations about which rich nation to grace with my productivity -- especially considering the added bonus of the anti-H1B movement in Congress.
Add all that up and guess what, the economy will probably grow a bit slower over the next few years than it otherwise would have. Atlas Shrugged in a minor key.
Just "Going Galt" until the System crashes and
resets, to about 1950, 1900... ; Place your bets...
Actually, Immoralist, let me apologize for putting my second point in such a snide tone. I didn't like it when you did it to other commentators, so I should not respond in kind. Let me simply say that I think you underestimate the degree to which small actions -- and reactions to government policy -- add up to affect the whole economy.
I think it's hilarious that the same liberals who call for high gas taxes to discourage driving think that high income taxes will not discourage working.
I think it's hilarious that small business owners are cutting back expenses in the midst of a depression, but blaming it on the possibility of future tax hikes.
While you guys are collecting anecdotes, don't forget the lucrative plumbing businesses going unsold in the Toledo area, out of fear that Obama will spread the wealth around. Absent that disincentive, numerous charismatic non-plumbers would surely flood the field.
A more relevant read is Melville's "The Confidence Man" (coincidentally, my favorite book of all time, imagine that).
Personally, I find Rand tedious and soulless. I'd rather watch shitty network TV like Lost than fantasize about cigarette-stenched capitalist sex.
The biggest difference between liscensed (ie, union) plumbers and others who do plumbing is that the official plumbers are more expensive, more arrogant, and more careless.
I think it's hilarious that the same liberals who call for high gas taxes to discourage driving think that high income taxes will not discourage working.
I think it's hilarious that cluless Randian fucks think a return to the rates of Ronald Reagan's America constitutes anything resembling "high" income taxes.
the tradeoff is well worthwhile to me (albeit very negative to society).
Negative to society? Says who?
Seriously, folks. To rephrase Immoralist in a polite manner, GDP growth is overrated. You've just admitted it in your own life choices. Europeans, with their higher tax rates, lower crime rates, way higher leisure time, and rather small less net accumulation of extra luxury cr*p - they're happier than we are. And they live longer.
What's particularly funny and ironic is that you're describing the slowdown you've already been doing in response to higher taxes that haven't even happened yet. It sounds an awful lot like you started before BO won the election, too. In other words, this has nothing to do with taxes. You're winding down because the economy's in the tank. And it's in the tank thanks to Ayn Rand's free-market wackery, which Alan Greenspan has been repeatedly quoted as being a faithful disciple.
By the way "Free-market wackery" is another, less nice way of Megan McCardle saying "Ayn Rand's philosophy does not work, at least if by work we mean generate a framework by which a person or society can order itself."
I loved the Fountainhead, as well. As a personal creed, it ain't bad. As a governance strategy, it epic fails. Basically because virtue and competence are not, in fact, distributed in a linear relationship among human beings. Also because virtuous, dynamic individualists are often wildly incorrect about important things and lazy slugs are right.
To put it another way - Adolf Hitler and John Galt are different in that one pursues his goals through violence, but they possess a lot of character traits. Dynamic men of action who adhere to a rigid philosophy without regard for the consequences to others that accrue during their pursuit of an imagined greater good. In the real world, the John Galts are sometimes Hitlers. Or, for another example, like the virtuous, energetic, devoted poor deluded suckers who ran Iceland for the past six years.
DB Cooper said
Small business owners have to plan ahead DB. Given the threat of tax increases they will modify their business now so they are ready for the tax increase...
Furthermore the proposed tax impact is much greater than a simple increase in income tax rate on the first dollar earned in the new tax bracket.
"Wealthy Idiots"
Judging by the spending Obama is proposing and his pledge to increase taxes on only the top 2 percent, taxes on that two percent are going way beyond what they were in the 90s -- above 50 percent, most likely.
I have heard nothing--nada, zip, zilch--to the effect that Obama wants to raise the top rate over 50%. All I've heard is that he'll let the Bush tax cuts expire for those making over $250,000. That's it.
Hey, if you want to be snide with me, go right ahead. I don't expect to give and not take any in return. And, honestly, I could give a damn whether anyone here listens to me. I post for my own amusement, and no other reason. It amuses me greatly to abuse drama queen acts like "ron" and "Uncle Bill," who think their decisions not to grow their mom 'n pop operations will actually have any significant impact on the economy.
Immoralist @ 9:57pm : funny fucking stuff! (-: You ought to be writing for Colbert.
Money doesn't really matter that much when no matter how much you make you've still got roommates.
Yup. That dirty bastard Obama just passed a law requiring Manhattan millionaires from taking advantage of the buyer's market. LoL! You can't make this shit up. Somebody call The Onion! Quick. I love it!
Michelle Caruso Cabrera an analyst on CNBC and avowed rightist, said last week that the top 2% of earners in NYC paid 70% of the taxes and thusly concluded that the top 2% in effect subsidized the remaining 98%.
I then asked her was she in the top 2%. She thusly SHUT HER MOUTH!
I get that feeling here on the board. I wonder if the oldies who are feigning retirment went to public school or state university? I'm betting 12 years of public education alone renders most avg or slightly above avg taxpayers net negative. Not to mention airports, roads, parks, etc.
The folly of the so called intellectuals on this board is that they only see things forward and from a view of their convenient choosing.
k1
Rand is good porno for people who get off on thinking about their inherent brilliance and/or specialness. It's ntellectual narcissism.
Did you ever consider the possibility that your continued support of the GOP you held in contempt ultimately enabled the Democrats to seize power with such decisiveness at this critical juncture?
The alternative would be to vote them into office early, to punish the Republicans, and hope that the Republicans learn the appropriate lesson and retake power before the "critical juncture" I'll need them in power for.
Since I can't predict when "critical junctures" will take place and can't guarantee Republicans will learn the right lesson from me voting against them (they learned "forget about small government, the public doesn't want it" from their late 90s setbacks), that isn't a very good approach to take.
I think it's hilarious that cluless Randian fucks think a return to the rates of Ronald Reagan's America constitutes anything resembling "high" income taxes.
The top tax rate in 1988 was 28%. It is currently 35%. Obama is raising it to 39.6%. I'm not sure exactly how stupid a person has to be to think that taxes are going to where they were when Reagan left office, but congratulations on achieving it.
The source of your "cluless"-ness is probably that Obama is planning to treat itemized tax deductions as if the tax rate was 28%. But that means people may MORE taxes, not less. The tax rate will be 39.6%, but deductions will be less effective.
It is always amusing to see the fury that some folks are moved to by the simple observation that incentives matter. Someone who neglects to mention FICA tax increases when discussing the issue is either too ignorant or dishonest to engage with.
Mind you, I have no pretensions about being able to predict with any precision as to how much a huge number of people will change a complex behavior. Ya' got me. It is just interesting to observe posters, who have pretensions of having insight, so contemptuously dismiss the possibility that millions of people making small behavioral changes can make a difference, or posters presume that they have the predictive powers to know such small changes wouldn't happen with a large number of people. It really is immoral to be that arrogantly dumb.
In any case, it is comforting to observe that The One has no interest in changing what has become easily the primary goal of our political economy; to ensure that non-poor retirees are not subject to economic unpleasantries, like, for instance, doing what one can to support oneself, as are
their poorer and younger fellow citizens. Whew!
I get that feeling here on the board. I wonder if the oldies who are feigning retirment went to public school or state university? I'm betting 12 years of public education alone renders most avg or slightly above avg taxpayers net negative.
Yes, the vast majority of Americans receive more in government benefits than they pay in taxes.
That's WHY the taxes are unfair, k1. You're not refuting the argument that the rich are too heavily taxed; you're proving it. The median American should not be getting a free ride. The poor, sure, you can make an argument for letting them slide. But the typical middle-class American is leeching off the most productive workers.
The 3rd to last sentence - "Her philosophy does not work, at least if by work we mean generate a framework by which a person or society can order itself." - is undefended and not even completely fleshed out. Thus it (along with the standard "cartoon characters" crack) looks like a twinge of fear or obsequiousness: OK, I just said something complimentary about Ayn Rand, but please still like me, for I'm still a refined, sophisticated member of the elite. Or something like that.
So leeches think they're John Galt. Interesting.
I'm honestly a little confused about the motivation behind this 'going Galt' thing, and maybe someone here could explain it to me.
Here is Obama's proposed tax increase: for all income over $250,000, your tax rate will be increased by 3%. This doesn't count capital gains; this is earned income. So, if you're a small business owner making $400,000 *profit* (not too shabby!) you'll be paying $7500 more in taxes. Let's keep the actual numbers in mind, here. We're not talking even a single employee's salary -- not even close.
But, fine. That's still a decent chunk of change (at least, it is to me, but I'm not making 400 K). And I understand that rich folks often have a bunch of expenses (private schools for the kids, at least 2 homes, a few expensive cars, etc.) But, from my perspective, the normal reaction to losing some money would be to either: 1) cut back on expenses; 2) cut back on savings; 3) work harder to make up the loss.
Are you folks seriously so resentful that, in response to losing a bit of income, you would 'stick it to the man' by freaking quitting your jobs? You would seriously cut off your noses to spite Obama's face? And, instead of feeling deep shame about your pettiness, you would come here and *brag* about it?
Is that really what we're talking about here? Or is there some other explanation?
Here is Obama's proposed tax increase: for all income over $250,000, your tax rate will be increased by 3%. This doesn't count capital gains; this is earned income.
You left out the cuts in deductions and his proposed raising of the payroll tax cap. You're also overlooking the fact that the proposed tax hikes don't come anywhere *near* covering the proposed spending increases, which means that further tax hikes are likely in the immediate future.
But, from my perspective, the normal reaction to losing some money would be to either: 1) cut back on expenses; 2) cut back on savings; 3) work harder to make up the loss.
That's because you need the money and have too much self-respect to go on the dole. Those are your only options.
But a person who already has a comfortable life doesn't need the extra money. For him (or her), work is something that is undertaken because the benefit of the extra money is better than the benefit of additional leisure time. As it is, taxes (federal and local) add up to the point where around half that money goes to the government. Now, with Obama's plan, it'll be even more. Worst of all, the new money isn't going to anything valuable. Just more pork.
If you already have a comfortable life, why the hell would you want to work hours you don't need to work just so most of the money can be used by politicians to buy votes?
You would seriously cut off your noses to spite Obama's face?
An hour spent at the office is an hour not spent with the people you love. Think about that, and consider if a person who opts for the latter over the former is really "cutting off his nose".
Take an extreme example as a thought experiment: if the effective tax rate was 99.999%, would you work a 40-hour week just so you could pocket $1 at the end of it? If the answer is "no", then you should be able to see that there's a point at which working just isn't worth it anymore. Where that point falls depends on the individual.
Are you folks seriously so resentful that, in response to losing a bit of income, you would 'stick it to the man' by freaking quitting your jobs?
Of course they're not serious. It's a bit of harmless, though infantile, posturing and preening.
Yes, the vast majority of Americans receive more in government benefits than they pay in taxes. That's WHY the taxes are unfair...the typical middle-class American is leeching off the most productive workers.
So then, Dan, in the interest of "fairness" you'll no doubt support higher rates for those "most productive" workers who grew up in posh zip codes with parents who could afford to send them to Harvard, and lower rates for those "most productive" workers who made it despite not having such advantages.
Not only does Randism/Libertarianism fail as utility-maximizing political economy, morally speaking it's as inconsistent, and as lame, as can be.
If the answer is "no", then you should be able to see that there's a point at which working just isn't worth it anymore. Where that point falls depends on the individual.
Right. And as the examples of numerous rich countries show, that point for the vast majority of individuals is far, far above the modest nudging up of rates Obama is proposing. I'm sure most Americans are shaking in their boots at the prospect that the US might become a little more like...um...Holland, or Canada.
Is it too much to ask that people actually, y'know, read an accurate report as to what taxes Obama has proposed raising, before commenting on what they think the reaction will be to those changes?
jonstock, the numbers don't add up on Obama's tax plan. If he took every dime from people making more than $250,000 it would barely cover his proposed spending. And of course there's a point of diminishing returns as you raise the tax rates.
And it's not a 3% tax increase. What they're proposing now is an elimination of the cap on social security wages. For a self-employed person that's a 14% hike on income over $100,000 or so. Just because they call it "FICA" on your pay stub doesn't mean it isn't a tax.
And that doesn't even include the cost of all this borrowing. It won't be too bad this year, but they'll either have to inflate their way out or raise taxes pretty sharply in the coming years.
Rand is good porno for people who get off on thinking about their inherent brilliance and/or specialness. It's ntellectual narcissism.
Funny, that's the way I feel about Marx and Obama.
Where the fuck would all you parasites go?
What "most Americans" think is not what is relevant when trying to gauge what significant economic behavioral changes will occur in response to changes in the tax code. Someone who hasn't grasped this would be well served to adopt a less insulting tone, given they have vastly overestimated their own intellect.
Obviously, dropping the top marginal rate from 72% to 28%, as happened in 1981, has a vastly larger impact on behavior, even factoring the FICA tax increases of the era, than does the comparitively much smaller changes and debated changes which took place over the past 16 years or so. The supply side fabulists never discuss the magnitude of rate changes when putting forth their assertions, which is why I dismissed them a long time ago.
On the other hand, as we see in this thread, the Groupies for The One are either too ignorant or dishonest to discuss the extent of what The One has proposed. No, it ain't back to 72%, but it isn't a simple increase in the top marginal rate of a few points, either. It also is either ignorant or dishonest to ignore the current spending spree's likely effect of leading to more upward pressure on tax rates.
Just to be clear, it probably is true that if Obama's proposals go through, someone in say, Manhattan, might be facing an effective marginal income tax rate of 72% or higher. That would include state and local taxes, however.
Coming in pretty late to this discussion, but I'm predicting this comment thread will hit triple digits, so here goes...
Re Obama's future tax proposals: if he wants to raise taxes on the top earners above the Clinton-era level, he would have been better off (and caused less uncertainty in the economy) if he had just proposed a higher top marginal rate (e.g., 45% instead of 39.6%) and left everything else the same, instead of keeping the 39.6% top rate but raising the top effective rate through round-about methods (e.g., limiting current deductions, raising or eliminating the Social Security wage basis, etc.). Even better would have been to raise taxes on consumption instead (which could still be made progressive with a generous exemption) to raise revenues, while lowering the corporate income tax rate to a level closer to that of other first world countries (say, 25%).
Re Atlas Shrugged: The book really could have used an empowered editor. Way too long, and over-the-top in some ways, but two set pieces from the book stand out in my mind, years after reading it, as cautionary tales about Marxism and fascism, respectively -- the story about the 20th Century Motor Company and the story about the lead up to the Comet train disaster.
A few of Rand's letters are also worth perusing. A big book of them was published years ago, and I found a few interesting ones leafing through at random. One or more detailed her correspondence with a relative who wanted money for her kid (Rand's nephew, if memory serves). Rand's response was a little more nuanced and human than you might expect from the woman who wrote about the "virtue of selfishness". Some other interesting stuff in the letters, e.g., Rand shooting down a woman's magazine that had asked her to write a column for them, saying that she didn't have much to say about homemaking, etc.; Rand's letter to Cecil B. DeMille, trying to get him to make a movie of Anthem (I think DeMille suggested to Rand that his wife could do an interpretive ballet based on it instead).
I think it's hilarious that cluless Randian fucks think a return to the rates of Ronald Reagan's America constitutes anything resembling "high" income taxes.
The maximum income tax rate on January 19th, 1989 was 28%. If we're retuning to the rates of Ronald Reagan's America, then you're going to have to cut tax rates sharply from their Bush-era 35%, not raise them to the Clinton-era 39.6%.
"Who is Dr. Helen?"
No seriously, who the hell is she? - I asked myself only this morning. I really hadn't the faintest idea. Which, even now, makes me even more terrified of her plot. The relative obscurity of this she-Galt is yet another chilling parallel to the hero of the prophetic 1300 pages masterpiece.
My feeble moocher mind recoils at the ominous sight of the now certain downfall of Socialist America, and manages to find fleeting comfort by revisiting a cliché of another atheistic tale: “The most merciful thing in the world... is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents” - an equally visionary, albeit far less talented writer than Ms. Rand, once proclaimed.
And merciful it is indeed, for it is this same inability that prevented me from discerning, since the 4th of November until this very day, the circuitous chain of events that inexorably links the election of Chairman Obama, the self-imposed income reduction of Dr. Helen, Michelle Malkin, and Glenn Reynolds, and the final collapse of our world.
Fellow parasites of the overmen, the origin of our ills is well known. As a dog often perishes from disease after affectionately licking the corpse of a recently dead relative, so too our twin species, Homo moochicus and Homo looticus, contracted a fatal illness because we couldn't control our base inclination towards vain, misplaced, immoral concern for the destitute. These people were, we recognized too late, naught but walking cadavers, hopelessly beyond our help, whose sole purpose was to test the fiber of our noble selfishness. We failed.
Now that the the end is near, we must at least make a closing effort to understand the error of our ways. Let us draw upon the weak power of our uncreative minds to answer this question: which disturbance was the tipping point that has waken the Great Laissez-Faire Gods from their slumber? Was it the insolent 3.6% raise in the income tax? Is hubris to be found in the impious practice of economic necromancy, through which we raised the New Deal abomination? Assist me, brothers!
Wait! What was that?
It... it's them! For the love of Kucinitch! I can't bear it! They... are...shrugging...
Re: Or did you forget Democrats retook Congress in the '06 elections.
And were able to do exactly zilch, except continue rubber-stamping Bush administration initatives.
Re: But if things get even worse, as I suspect they will, expect more upper-middle-income to upper-income folks to quietly drop out.
Unless they have enough money to live on, independently, how will they "drop out"? I doubt you mean they're going to end up as hermits in the woods. And even if they are living off their savings, those savings will still be part of the system. Moreover whenever someone "drops out" someone else moves in to take their place. Just as in ecology, niches do not go long-unfilled in an economy. (And yes, it makes sense that older people might want to drop out; early retirement is a dream of many people; what's the point in having money if you have no time to enjoy it?) There's no such thing as an indispensible or irreplaceable individual in this world. Others will pick up the opportunities you drop. Entrepreneurs are not some exotic species of rare alien life after all. They're homo sapaiens just like the rest of us. If someone told me I could have a 500K income, but would have to pay a 50% tax rate, I'd take that deal tomorrow- I would still come out far ahead of where I am now.
I have always been rather indifferent to Rand's philosophy, and yes, her characters spoke like little objectivist automatons. But I will give Rand credit on two points - she invented two very attractive men in Hank Reardon and Francisco D'Anconia. Who could go to the infinitely boring John Galt after those two?
"Europeans, with their higher tax rates, lower crime rates, way higher leisure time, and rather small less net accumulation of extra luxury cr*p - they're happier than we are. And they live longer."
Yes, and Europeans will soon be a thing of the past, given their breeding rate, which is linked to the high unemployment which is linked to their higher taxes and greater leisure time. And Europe's history doesn't seem so hot either...but if we just focus very carefully on the present, it's undeniable that Europeans are the envy of the world.
She was able to describe these things so well, of course, because she'd seen what an economy looked like while it was being wrecked. All of Rand's writing is dominated by the fact that she lived through the birth pangs of Soviet Russia, and saw her family's business destroyed by Lenin's ideology, and extraordinarily incompetent economic management.
Ladies and gentlemen, Megan McArdle has just unintentionally compared George W. Bush to Vladimir Lenin.
Megan, this is the most spot-on critique of that book (and of Rand) that I've seen in years. Thank you for putting it so well. If only I could convince more of the world's financial pundits that no, we are NOT living in Book II of Atlas Shrugged and they are NOT John Galt (or even Hank Rearden), maybe common sense would start to be a little more common. But these little mental maps are hard to shake.
Oh well, at least it'll be fun to watch them when the gold bubble pops.
The idea that if all these "producers" "drop out" the economy will take a hit because their individual "brilliance" will not longer produce whatever it is they produced is down on the floor rolling around laughable at best. There will always be someone to run in and fill the void. So please do us all a favor and drop out... all of you, the sooner the better.
Second the idea that the people who make the highest incomes produce anything usable is also a lie. In AS all the people who ran those companies invented things, innovated, produced usable or at least salable products. A quaint if not wholly 19th century view of how big business is run today. Today the highest paid people don't have any relationship whatsoever to what the company does. The notion that Atlas Shrugged is intellectual narcissism is elevating it to a a fair-thee-well because it would first have to be intellectual.
But please all of you latter day John Gualt's and Hank Rearden's and Dagny Taggert's for god sake drop out, we don't need whatever it is you think you have.
The fact remains, the DOW was 14,000 before the 2006 elections and is now 6800. That is a loss of trillions of wealth. The fact remains that President Bush tried to rein in Fannie and Freddie and was defeated by Chris Dodd, Barney Frank and the Dems in Congress. The fact remains that government cannot do anything effectively or efficiently. Do you really want your doctor to be a government employee? Have you ever been to a Post Office or a VA hospital? Do you really want charities to be dependent upon the government for funding? Have you ever been to the Social Security office?
Socialism is a suicide pact for a society. It really is that simple. Hugo Chavez' Venuzuela is beginning to have food shortages. Cuba is a dead society. The USSR is dead. Eastern Europe communist states are dead. Why do large numbers of people want to follow those examples?
Cicero had is right in 55 BC - The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.
I've shrugged off 50% of my work. I proposed to my company to allow me to work every other week and cut my pay by 50%, and this was done back in early October. I've got enough remaining income and savings to live quite comfortable, and am with the family on a ski trip right now.
I'm not working less because I have some perception that it will not be worth it in terms of marginal tax rates. But working less because I realize our society is a joke and I wanted to pull out for a couple years and enjoy myself rather than deal with ALL the excess BS that I have to put up with, most of it from the government.
So the government gets less tax revenue from me, my company gets less product development and sales, which translates to less jobs and more decreases in tax revenue.
I didn't do a simple dollar calculation. I'm just fed up with being involved in this ridiculous system others have created "for my own good".
I personally would have preferred that Rand work her myriad issues out with a therapist rather than subject her ideas upon a segment of the populice eager to justify their greed.
@Basil
"Socialism is a suicide pact for a society. It really is that simple. Hugo Chavez' Venuzuela is beginning to have food shortages. Cuba is a dead society. The USSR is dead. Eastern Europe communist states are dead."
I note you exclude the more socilist elements of countries like Great Britain and France, care to explain why?
And Basil wins the award for the most hilariously hyperbolic post of the thread. I tried to write a response but some rhetoric just crosses the line of what I can take seriously.
So, to echo some other posters: anyone who wants to "go Galt" is by all means welcome to. The people who think they are indispensible to society are in no way so, and I encourage them to all drop out in mass. Particularly if it's because of a tax increase on income over 250k a year. Oh, you poor, poor babies.
Ayn Rand sucks donkey dick. I know from personal experience.
The Galtards in this thread should realize that Rand's primary motivation in life was her desire to screw anything she wanted, even if she had to seduce the mentally disabled (Objectivists) with subliterate prose to accomplish that goal. She certainly never made money on her crappy books.
All the Randtards should emulate her, present company not excepted.
"She certainly never made money on her crappy books."
Crappy as they may be, I'm pretty sure they've sold a *lot* of copies. Surely she made a decent amount on them in her life (and a decent amount from speaking fees etc because of the fame from her books).
"Cartoon characters?" In Shakespeare, for instance? Are there novels that don't have cartoon characters? And why would you want to read them? Real characters are found in non-fiction, though even there authors tend to fictionalize people (eg. D.S. Freeman on R.E. Lee).
Reading many of the postings above, it just confirms how many people think life should be all about going around hitting other people.
Dan writes: "I vote for Republicans because, bad as they are, Democrats are worse. That doesn't mean I have anything but contempt for most of the last ten years of Republican Party behavior."
I think most Republican voters feel this way. On the other hand, most Democratic voters tend to really like their party. I find that pretty creepy.
Mike M:
It's interesting to note how these countries have been moving positively towards the U.S. formerly socialist model.
"Great Britain and France"
France has had years of ludicrously high unemployment due to socialist-inspired work laws. This causes poor, hungry, out-of-work youths to riot and cause violence. However, when France has tried to amend these laws, the Obamas of France riot in the street. France has recently tried to adopt the American Bankruptcy system, to sort of back door some capitalism.
For crying out loud, every year Paris burns. France is in the crapper--hence why a nut like La Penn can get air time. Their new leader is more right than Obama.
Great Britain, too, has had undercurrents of violence, despite its draconian gun laws. At various times in the 2000s, you were more likely to be the victim of a violent crime in Britain than in the U.S. Heck, now they have "knife" violence (and let's forget the soccer hooligans and the hoodies, whose presence would be shocking in America). And the expat Brits in this nation complain about the bad healthcare in Britain all the time. The brain drain to U.S. universities highlights this.
Socialism is killing these nations. Sure, its more slowly than the old commie/socialist states, but that's only because they adopted less.
And let's not forget one thing: during the cold war, these nations let the U.S., as today, carry the bulk of military defense against Soviet incursion. All that money that we had to spend on military buildup to avoid Russian annihilation was largely absent from these nations' budgets.
So these glorified socialistic systems were built with the money for the military; but woe to these nations should the U.S. capitulate to their demands and draw down its military incursions or withdraw from treaties. Then you'd see these countries lose any semblence of funds to keep poor people on the dole.
Uncle Bill wrote:
"You are more naive than I thought if you believe people are not already "Galting" (even though they may not actually call it that)....I would be interested to hear if other readers know of similar cases."
I started Galting in 1992.
I have an IBM computer "clone" business in the 80s, which I sold in 1992. From 1985-1988 it was like owning my own mint; that thing made a fortune. By the end, competition made it worth very little, but fortunately we held on to our profits and did not p*ss them away like most people.
I retired in my early 30s.
I am temperamentally unsuited to working for someone alse, and I have often thought about starting another business. But my wife works in a good job, and if I started something up, I'd be paying 39.6% marginal Federal income tax, plus state tax, plus local tax, plus 15.3% FICA (for something I know I'll never get), plus Federal unemployment, plus state unemployment, plus required insurance, plus child care, plus another car and its associated expenses, plus things like clothing and dry cleaning, plus probably more meals out because we'd both be exhausted all the time, plus interest on the money I'd have to invest, plus a zillion other things.
So I'd be effectively keeping 20-25% or so of what I earn (maybe), for the privilege of busting my ass for 60+ hours a week AND risking a whole bunch of money, AND my health, AND having goddam economic illiterates like Barack Obama tell me I'm not doing my fair share.
NO FRIGGIN' WAY. SCREW THE WORLD.
That's why I have been John Galt since 1992, and why I encourage others to do the same.
And if you own a small business and have to lay people off, start with the Obama supporters. Let's teach some lessons, good and hard.
I really thought the bear Market rally that I predicted would last longer than one day. Maybe it will, but I'm not a chartist, so I don't want to play that game.
My gold has lost money, which means it's cheap, so I'm buying more.
Worker productivity unexpectedly dropping today shows what I and damn near I alone have been saying all along: Stagflation is coming.
"And if you own a small business and have to lay people off, start with the Obama supporters. Let's teach some lessons, good and hard."
Yeah, I'm sure the small business owners' lawyers appreciate this advice. Even so, maybe the laid off will stop purchasing whatever your wife produces, so be careful of what lessons you want to teach.
"I started Galting in 1992."
Oddly enough, the earth kept spinning.
It's sad to see so much anger coming from those who support raising taxes on "the rich"...it looks like Obama has indeed sown the seeds of class warfare. Nice.
Liberals seem to only believe that government can have major impact on people's lives when it is an impact that they support.
Believing that lowering taxes on the middle class and giving 'rebates' to people who already odn't pay taxes will have a net positive impact on these groups of people and lead to changes in their spending behavior CANNOT be renconciled with the view that raising taxes on the rich WILL NOT change their behavior in any meaningful way. That is having your cake and eating it too.
A lot of people have believed all along that there is no way Obama could finance his tax cuts for the 'working people' based on ONLY increasing the marginal income tax rate...and that it was only a matter of time before a host of new taxes on "the rich" were put in place.
And so it has come to pass in less than 60 days, and even the many tax increases he has proposed don't come close to raising the money he needs for all his spending programs.
The answer then is obvious, he's going to continue raising taxes on the productive segments of society in order to redistribute their wealth to the unproductive members.
Rich fifty-something boomers please feel free to retire and consume, opening up jobs and entrepreneurial niches for us younger people who have a lot of debt and therefore need to keep working.
Rand is full of it, there are almost no people so intelligent and excellent that they are irreplacable. Maybe someone like Einstein, but the commercial applications of work like that aren't necessarily there immediately--the government was needed to get an atom bomb going after all.
You know, most of what's being discussed wouldn't qualify as 'going Galt' (previously referred to also as 'gulching'), which would be a total retreat from society in some sort of survivalist way.
Instead it's more along the lines of the choice Hugh Akston made in the novel. But I suppose 'going Akston' would really only resonate with a tiny core of Ayn Rand übernerds :-)
glasnot: "Europeans, with their higher tax rates, lower crime rates, way higher leisure time, and rather small less net accumulation of extra luxury cr*p - they're happier than we are. And they live longer."
Europeans are not saddled with a massive underclass that doesn't work, refuses attempts at education, has sky-rocketing birth rates, and commits crime at severely disproportionate rates -- victimizing the same folks subsidizing their lifestyles.
All this talk about tax rates is a distraction, as entitlements are financed by debt. Do the demographic math and you'll see that this system's termination point is collapsing under its own weight, probably within the next 100 years.
"Believing that lowering taxes on the middle class and giving 'rebates' to people who already odn't pay taxes will have a net positive impact on these groups of people and lead to changes in their spending behavior CANNOT be renconciled with the view that raising taxes on the rich WILL NOT change their behavior in any meaningful way. That is having your cake and eating it too."
It can't be reconciled? Really? Does this one really need explaining? People living paycheck-to-paycheck who receive a little more in each check immediately spend all that money. People who have a bank account in the Caymans simply have less money in it to give to their children if they get taxed more. It's not like they're investing 100% of their income into their business; they have wealth sitting there doing nothing, and now they have less of it. This is not a hard concept.
Oh, and you might want to familiarize yourself with a concept called the "payroll tax", which I can assure you is a tax everyone receiving these tax cuts does in fact pay.
"Europeans are not saddled with a massive underclass that doesn't work, refuses attempts at education, has sky-rocketing birth rates, and commits crime at severely disproportionate rates -- victimizing the same folks subsidizing their lifestyles."
Yes, the classic libertarian "blame it on the negroes" line. I suppose there aren't any of *those* in Rand's world, eh? Or children, either, now that I think of it.
"People living paycheck-to-paycheck who receive a little more in each check immediately spend all that money."
And where does this money go? To the entrepenuers and the "productive" memebers of society. If the lower and middle class people can't afford the basics, then those who produce them with be "Galted" anyway. Am I missing something?
People didn't spend the Bush rebate, what makes you think they are going to spend the Obama rebate when the economy is significantly weaker now than it was then?
It is silly to think that raising all kinds of taxes on "the rich" isn't going to affect their behavior in terms of what they do with their money and how it is invested. If all we were talking about was a 5% raise on income tax, I'd agree, it is no big deal.
But that is just the beginning.
In response to my comment
"And if you own a small business and have to lay people off, start with the Obama supporters. Let's teach some lessons, good and hard."
RG wrote:
"Yeah, I'm sure the small business owners' lawyers appreciate this advice."
You don't ANNOUNCE TO EVERYONE that you are specifically laying off Obama supporters, dipshit.
JH Christ on a stick, man, THINK.
And my wife in in a job that will always be needed and if she gets laid off, this country will already be in a serious world of hurt, much worse than we are in now.
We figured this out and arranged it years ago.
So have fun, all you mortgage-paying, 60-hour-working, cubicle-dwelling, high-earning Obama voters in places like NYC and CA who just thought it would be SO COOL to have him as President.
I'll enjoy more than you can imagine watching you suffer buyers' remorse as you bleed out 75% of your income over the next 4 years.
"And where does this money go? To the entrepenuers and the "productive" memebers of society. If the lower and middle class people can't afford the basics, then those who produce them with be "Galted" anyway. Am I missing something?"
I'm not sure what your point is. If the lower and middle classes can't afford the basics, then yes, that is a serious problem with large ramifications. Which is why it's somewhat more important to make sure they can afford the basics than to make sure our millionaires get to keep a bit more of their money.
And of course, that doesn't get into who Rand would consider more productive: the factory worker or the hedge fund manager. I wonder what she would think should happen to people that make so much for producing nothing of value.
Adam, is that any worse than the liberal line: it's never black people's fault, their just victims and do nothing wrong, its always white straight christian males who are to blame?
"I'll enjoy more than you can imagine watching you suffer buyers' remorse as you bleed out 75% of your income over the next 4 years."
I know you have this attitude that all people care about is money, but did you ever stop and think that perhaps some of those people *don't mind* paying more of their income to make sure everyone has healthcare? There's a reason why Obama won the income bracket he specifically promised to raise taxes on. Perhaps it's because there are a lot more important things in life to some people than their marginal tax rate. I feel sad for those for whom that isn't true.
See: Duke Rape Case.
Out here in flyover country, the mood has definitely shifted. Guns and ammo are flying off the shelves. Ruger and Smith & Wesson stock is up 30%.
My dad (Bearded Sarek) just bought four rifles, three shotguns, two gun safes and a 9mm in a pear tree. If you knew how boring and conservative he normally is, you'd know that's quite a big deal.
Class warfare is erupting. The social fabric is tearing. It's not just economics now.
"Adam, is that any worse than the liberal line: it's never black people's fault, their just victims and do nothing wrong, its always white straight christian males who are to blame?"
Than your characterization of it? No. But the *actual* liberal line is: we see the same problems you do. Now instead of proclaiming that the sole cause of the country's problems and wishing they'd all go back to Africa and Mexico, how do we go about solving these problems? Because they're Americans, and they're not going anywhere. Help get them on their feet and get their kids a proper education and maybe the next generation won't be such a drain on society.
Or, you could just say "damn the minorities, damn America". Which Staash pretty much did say.
I believe people in that income bracket are going to eventually suffer buyer's remorse because they believed that ALL they were looking at was a 5% increase in their marginal income tax rate....once they find out that the cumulative effect of all the tax changes is going to be substantially higher, things might change.
"You don't ANNOUNCE TO EVERYONE that you are specifically laying off Obama supporters, dipshit."
So do you poll them in advance? How do you determine who they supported, check their cars for bumper stickers? This is your idea man, run with it.
"So have fun, all you mortgage-paying, 60-hour-working, cubicle-dwelling, high-earning Obama voters in places like NYC and CA who just thought it would be SO COOL to have him as President."
Beats your alternative of b#tching on a blog.
Adam:
Funny how these people are so altruistic that they will vote to have a gun held to their heads (the ultimate threat if you don't pay your taxes) but are completely unwilling to donate the money to the poor of their own free will.
It's amazing how some states have voluntary overpayment options for taxes, and virtually no one pays them, especially people like John and Teresa Kerry, who advocate higher taxes.
I don't know if these people are bipolar, liars, or merely hypocrites. Perhaps all three.
And also, if you think money in a bank is "sitting there doing nothing", then you haven't been paying attention to the news for a very, very long time.
Worker productivity unexpectedly dropping today shows what I and damn near I alone have been saying all along: Stagflation is coming.
You're hardly alone Spock. Most, if not all, Austrians are saying the same, though we may be a relatively lonely bunch.
People who have a bank account in the Caymans simply have less money in it to give to their children if they get taxed more. It's not like they're investing 100% of their income into their business; they have wealth sitting there doing nothing, and now they have less of it. This is not a hard concept.
This is dumb. Want to rethink it, or do you need an explanation?
I know you have this attitude that all people care about is money, but did you ever stop and think that perhaps some of those people *don't mind* paying more of their income to make sure everyone has healthcare?
Then no need to tax it and pay all the deadweight overhead, right?
Adam:
Please, I live in NYC. The actual liberal line is to blame any white straight male who is Christian and doesn't degrade himself and is proud of his accomplishments.
"we see the same problems you do."
----no, you don't. you think abortion is a wonderful thing and not a problem, but the fact that an organization doesn't have enough black people MUST be racist and MUST be fixed with quotas, regardless of qualifications.
"Now instead of proclaiming that the sole cause of the country's problems and wishing they'd all go back to Africa and Mexico,"
---Yawn. Another liberal straw man. See what you're doing there liberal? Now all the WSCM are RACIST, which is, in your mind, THE PROBLEM>
"how do we go about solving these problems?"
--by not enabling it.
"Help get them on their feet and get their kids a proper education and maybe the next generation won't be such a drain on society."
---lol. The same failed liberal policies that have created the generations dependent on the welfare state, destroyed marriage, encouraged promiscuity and broken families, and killed 50 million kids? I'll pass, thanks. You're a failure.
"Or, you could just say "damn the WSCMs, damn America". Which liberals pretty much did say."
---FTFY. And your president stands by those statements, considering his friendship with Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers.
"Funny how these people are so altruistic that they will vote to have a gun held to their heads (the ultimate threat if you don't pay your taxes) but are completely unwilling to donate the money to the poor of their own free will."
Again, the problem you people have is that you view everything through the paradigm of taxes and money.
The point is that a lot of the people who are well-off have tax rates as rather lower on the list of priorities than those who make 75-150k (the group that's most Republican). They could like Obama for a whole lot of reasons other than his tax plans. They could dislike his tax plan and still think he's the best choice. They might not really care either way what they get taxed as long as we get out of Iraq. Etc etc.
You, on the other hand, appear to have a single-minded focus on taxes as the only issue in politics. Which would probably put you in that 75-150k group. The one that thinks they're going to be rich someday, so they want to have as much as possible when they get there. The Republican base.
Adam writes: "Than your characterization of it? No. But the *actual* liberal line is: we see the same problems you do."
The Moynihan report is a good example of this.
Adam continues: "Now instead of proclaiming that the sole cause of the country's problems and wishing they'd all go back to Africa and Mexico, how do we go about solving these problems?"
Your hyperbole aside, where we differ is how we go about solving these problems. Personally, I like the notion where we have a welfare state to the extent that people can live safely and happily even if they're thrown under the capitalist bus. The sad reality is, however, that these entitlements ultimately compound the problem.
A good example of this is the increasing number of out-of-wedlock births since the Great Society. Those without a strong family structure are at a decided disadvantage in life. Rather than providing a basic safety net to encourage entrepreneurship and lift the disadvantaged up, the real effect of this well-intentioned but misguided legislation was to push these further to society's margins. I find that fact nothing but disheartening.
Adam adds "Or, you could just say "damn the minorities, damn America". Which Staash pretty much did say."
I didn't say or imply that. I said this system is unsustainable. Do you disagree with that?
Staash,
"Personally, I like the notion where we have a welfare state to the extent that people can live safely and happily even if they're thrown under the capitalist bus. The sad reality is, however, that these entitlements ultimately compound the problem."
You have an overly black-and-white perspective. The only two options are not "bankruptcy from entitlement overload" and "unemployment = starving on the street". There's room for someone to live safely but not happily.
"A good example of this is the increasing number of out-of-wedlock births since the Great Society."
Come on, this isn't remotely related to the Great Society. There's definitely an increasing number of out-of-wedlock births among educated white people as well, and black out-of-wedlock births have increased at a slower pace than other groups. Don't pull the welfare queen card.
"I didn't say or imply that."
You said that the cause of the countries problems was the underclass who are uneducated and have more kids and commit more crimes. I wonder who you could have been talking about there?
"I said this system is unsustainable. Do you disagree with that?"
I don't think SS is unsustainable, the cap at 93k or whatever just needs to be raised. Medicare is clearly unsustainable, and health care reform needs to happen to fix that. There's no reason why we spend twice per capita as other developed countries. Welfare could certainly be changed a lot. But as I said, there's a lot of fixes that can be made while still keeping a safety net in place.
Here's a thought experiment.
How many people on this board support or supported the Iraq War? I know for the most part Republicans did, including those in Congress.
Now let's sit back and consider what would have happened had we not gone into Iraq and summarily WASTED $1 trillion. Would we even need to jack up tax rates?
Here's another: let's say that we ignored Greenspan and had decided that regulating CDSs and some of these other financial "innovations." Would we need to raise tax rates?
I don't like that it has to be done, but we are cleaning up messes created with the help of Republicans. By the way, Republicans held Congress from 1995 until 2007. AND before that Reagan and Bush were president. The idea that somehow Republicans weren't complict in this whole mess is asinine.
Let me make sure that this thread goes into triple digits by observing that its ridiculous to believe that rich people will stop doing the things that make them rich if Obama raises taxes to a level BELOW where they were in the 1950s and 60s. Back then, rich people continued to be productive despite the 70% marginal tax rates -and complained about it less, too.
As to the freaking Randians who are typing out their screeds about government not doing anything right, they SHOULD understand that their messages are going out over a communications network-The Internet- that was originated, planned and is still largely funded by.... the government!
I tell you, the stupid..... IT BURNS!!!
The welfare state absolutely had a huge impact on the disintegration of the black family structure and increase of single parent households among that demographic. The way welfare payments and AFDC payments were calculated encouraged single young women to have children. By the time there was enough data to prove this sad fact, it was too late, the behavior had become the de facto norm and is now entrenched. It has nothing to do with the 'welfare queens' and everything to do with admitting the negative results of policy decisions.
I think what the poster said was that it was difficult to directly compare Europe to the U.S. because we have a huge, uneducated, violent underclass that they don't. And that is also true, however painful and un PC it is to admit it.
First, Brian2, the money was not "watsed." A genocidal dictator was removed and Iraq is now free. We won the war.
Second, we do not need to jack up rates now. To do so is to commit suicide, which is precisely what NotMyPresident wants, considering "God Damn America."
Third, Greenspan was appointed by Clinton, natch.
Fourth, no one wanted to regulate CDS. And let's not forget Bush tried to fix Fannie and Freddie....but Democrats blocked him.
Fifth, this economy is not the Republicans fault. The current Democrat head of the SEC was the head of FINRA during all thsi mess, and never lifted a finger to get involved in fighting the CDS. She did nothing, either.
The economy fell, like all economies in a business cycle. Blaming Conservative policies is factless and a straw man.
Sxith, glad you agree that the Republicans presided over an economy that was at full steam for 11 out of 12 years, and that the economic mess today was presided over by Democrats.
Thanks, kid.
I'm glad Adam has conceded my points through a failure to argue. He can go back to blaming the WSCMs and enforcing quota systems and killing children and putting people on welfare and avoiding blaming blacks for any of their own problems till the whole thing collapses, and then, alone in his cave, he'll blame WSCMs some more.
Adam:
"Again, the problem you people have is that you view everything through the paradigm of taxes and money."
Deel free to point out those Obama policies that don't involve taxes or money.
"Which would probably put you in that 75-150k group."
I wish I made CLOSE to 75k, but I don't. Thank you for laying "guess my income", please pick out a keychain.
Of course, since I live in the midwest, out costs of living don't require a 6 figure salary just to afford a studio apartment in a crappy part of town.
"The one that thinks they're going to be rich someday"
Wrong again. Want to move to double jeopardy where the scores can REALLY change?
I merely want to be comfortably middle class (and I'm more or less there).
I've considered starting my own business as a way of "getting rich", but working hard is one thing, working hard then dealing with the nightmare of taxes a business owner must deal with made me decide that is simply isn't worth it.
Seems the words with red squiggly lines beneath them are misspelled. I should pay closer attention.
"First, Brian2, the money was not "watsed." A genocidal dictator was removed and Iraq is now free. We won the war."
Gee, when do we move on to Sudan, Saudi Arabia, North korea, etc.? We subsidized elections in a foreign country thousands of miles away. They posed no threat to us, weak army, minimal air force, no navy, no WMDs. They will grow closer to Iran as time goes on, which is probably not the result we wanted.
"Third, Greenspan was appointed by Clinton, natch."
Or by Reagan.
Adam writes: "You said that the cause of the countries problems was the underclass who are uneducated and have more kids and commit more crimes. I wonder who you could have been talking about there?"
No, I said that European and American economic policies are not interchangeable, and this is a reason why. The fact that you conflate this with "the cause of the countries [sic] problems" says much to me about your predisposed worldview.
Adam continues: "Come on, this isn't remotely related to the Great Society."
Really? There seems to be a pretty strong correlation. [1]
In 1964, the out of wedlock birthrate was 6.9% for all races. In 1969, the first year tracking birthrates by race, it rose to 10.0%, 34.9% for blacks.
Black out of wedlock births reached a peak at 70% in 1994. Clinton's welfare reform happened in 1996. Since then, it's steadily declined to about 68.5% in 2000, while out of wedlock births for all races have risen to 33.2%. I'd speculate this has something to do with the Hispanic population, where out of wedlock births have risen from 36.7% in 1991 to 42.7% in 2000.
Unfortunately, 2000 is the last data-point I could easily find. If you can point me to a more recent study, I'd appreciate it.
Adam continues: "But as I said, there's a lot of fixes that can be made while still keeping a safety net in place."
I don't think a few minor tweaks are going to dig us out of this hole.
[1] http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/statab/t001x17.pdf
"black out-of-wedlock births have increased at a slower pace than other groups."
-Adam
Once 3 out of 4 black children are born out of wedlock, there is only so fast the rate can grow.
RG, I stand corrected on Greenspan. Clinton merely kept him in charge. Thank you.
"They posed no threat to us,"
----just the Kurds Hussein he was annihilating and the general people he was oppressing. And, as Hitchens has pointed out, he was friendly with terrorists. But hey, whatever.
"weak army, minimal air force, no navy,"
---So we're only supposed to engage dictators with armies *stronger* than us???? So if we can easily beat an army, too bad, so sad, your country still gets to be oppressed???
"no WMDs."
---Again, liberals, every SINGLE COUNTRY involved in the Iraq War discussion thought, THROUGH THEIR OWN INTELLIGENCE, that Saddam had the WMDs. There were no "lies", despite what your lesbian hippie marchers screamed over and over. France. England. Germany. You name them, they thought it.
You're basically arguing that the moment we found out the WMDs weren't there, we should ahve pulled out---leaving the country to bloody civil war and ethnic cleansing. Or we could surge, ensure fair elections, and keep thousands of people from being killed.
"They will grow closer to Iran as time goes on, which is probably not the result we wanted."
---Wrong. But then again, what's a liberal without military defeatism and assertions without proof?
"The idea that somehow Republicans weren't complict[sic] in this whole mess is asinine."
I find the finger pointing between the two parties vis a vis this crisis asinine, period. Victory has a thousand fathers and defeat is an orphan.
If someone could provide me with a prominent politician, Democrat or Republican, who could lucidly explain how a Gaussian copula works, I might be inclined to change my perspective. Last time I checked, faulty financial models didn't have a political persuasion.
Adam,
The point is that a lot of the people who are well-off have tax rates as rather lower on the list of priorities than those who make 75-150k (the group that's most Republican). They could like Obama for a whole lot of reasons other than his tax plans. They could dislike his tax plan and still think he's the best choice. They might not really care either way what they get taxed as long as we get out of Iraq. Etc etc.
But then Fraggle Rock does have a point, doesn't s/he? If you're really so well off that you don't much care whether your taxes are increased or not, what excuse have you for not voluntarily overpaying your taxes (or for not donating your surplus directly to charity, which might well be the better idea)?
Besides, there do appear to be rather a lot of people who would gladly pay higher taxes as long as they are assured that all their neighbors are doing the same thing.
----just the Kurds Hussein he was annihilating and the general people he was oppressing. And, as Hitchens has pointed out, he was friendly with terrorists. But hey, whatever.
Once again, why do you get to use my tax dollars to play world police? If we are so cocnerned about oppression, why not fight it everywhere? Why only Iraq?
---Again, liberals, every SINGLE COUNTRY involved in the Iraq War discussion thought, THROUGH THEIR OWN INTELLIGENCE, that Saddam had the WMDs. There were no "lies", despite what your lesbian hippie marchers screamed over and over. France. England. Germany. You name them, they thought it.
Check the Downing Street Memo. And while those other countries may have thought a weapons program existed, they weren't silly enough to base their case for an invasion on such flimsy evidence.
---Wrong. But then again, what's a liberal without military defeatism and assertions without proof?
Well, demographically, they are the only two countries in the area with Shiite majorities, so it makes sense.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,334373,00.html
http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-33959220080608
I think we could get an Atlas Shrugged effect in this downturn, though not in the sense of the producers exactly going on strike or moving to Galt's Gulch.
Everyone makes decisions on priorities. Do I want to work myself into an early grave building up a business so I can pass something onto my kids? Do I want to spend eight years in school and another four or five as an underpaid, overworked apprentice so I can practice medicine?
The real version of Atlas shrugging would be something like the paradox of thrift, but on a longer-term level. Instead of working 80 hour weeks to build up my consulting company, I find ways to cut my cost of living (maybe I move to someplace in the midwest where I'm willing to send my kids to the public schools), and I moderate my working hours to improve my quality of life. I decide that making partner isn't worth never seeing my kids, and work out how to make lifestyle choices that support that.
This economic downturn is unprecedented, and it's not hard to imagine it having social effects as broad as those of the Depression. That could easily include a widespread move away from valuing outward signs of success (high salary, prestigious job, impressive credentials), in favor of higher quality of life. When people make this kind of change in their lives now, their reasons often could almost fit into some of those long speeches in Atlas Shrugged--working you a-- off is not respected or rewarded, the surrounding larger broken systems (government budgets, research funding mechanisms, f--ked up corporate management, health care financing) are surviving only by sucking blood out of the producers, etc.
Galt's Gulch, in this case, isn't some hidden valley in Colorado with a diffraction ray/cloaking device and a big gold dollar sign out front. It's a backyard where you're cooking ribs outside while your kids play, with your laptop packed up and your Blackberry turned off.
You don't need overt hostility to achievement to accomplish this. Unthinking screwing over of the people who do the work (as with what's happening to primary care doctors right now) is plenty.
The Iraq War is irrelevant in terms of the economic crisis, especially since $1 trillion in debt over 8 years is looking positively frugal when compared to Obama racking up about $4 trillion in debt within his first month in office.
It is true that the Bush Administration was pre occupied with the so called 'war on terror' but if someone can point me to any Democratic leaders who were sounding the alarm about the derivatives market, collateralized debt obligations or sub prime mortgages, please do.
I do remember seeing several Democratic Congressmen adamently claiming that there was no problem with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and inferring that anyone who wanted to reign in their sub prime lending was a racist. I saw that on youtube.
It's also worth noting that Clinton signed the repeal of Glass Steagal and also presided over the loosening of Wall Street rules and refusal to regulate derivatives market...
It is a very bipartisan breakdown.
MikeM, its because Britian got to the edge and a great leader, Mrs. Thatcher, pulled them back from the brink. Also, they have been able to avoid spending for national defense because we are doing it for them for free.
However, they are still dying, ever so inexorably.
Once we no longer defend them all for free, they will be ripe for the picking. A shame really. Great civilizations do die out and mostly from within.
Just an addendum: The effect of that kind of Atlas shrugging (Atlas resolving to spend more time fishing) won't be entirely benign, if it happens, because we've built up all kinds of debt/obligations/government programs on the assumption that people will remain focused on monetary rewards and building up big successful businesses and such. A world where most everyone decides they're just not willing to make those sacrifices is a world with a lot less formal economic activity (maybe more happiness, but less of it involving a formal exchange of cash for goods or services), a lot fewer jobs, and a whole lot less to tax. It's easy to tax a fraction of the money I make as a consultant. It's damned hard to tax the satisfaction I get from spending time with my kids, playing with my dog, going on picnics with my wife, dabbling in painting or carpentry for fun, etc.
Wow. Every year "Paris burns". The British socialized medicine system was pulled back from the bring by Thatcher 30 years ago.
Either you guys are outright lying or you've never been to Europe and have no idea what you're talking about.
People in these countries are quite happy with their social systems and safety nets. A perfunctory google search will tell you as much (try it). Can one make an argument that a self satisfied populice destroys innovation due to complacency? Definitely - but you're not making that argument. Your argument tries to suggest that these countries are going down the tubes and the people are miserable and rioting in the streets every day.
That's a gross distortion of the truth at best, actually much closer to a bald faced lie. The fact that you say the "Obama's of France" are rioting every week belies the outright racism of your viewpoint as well.
Until you own up to the benefits as well as the drawbacks of the European styles of government, you won't be taken seriously. Especially by people declaring bankruptcy because they couldn't afford to get sick in this country.
"Once again, why do you get to use my tax dollars to play world police? If we are so cocnerned about oppression, why not fight it everywhere? Why only Iraq?"
--well, besides his flaunting UN sanctions, harboring terrorists, being a good place as a counterweight to Iran in the region, murdering people, and setting an example for domino democracy---conveniently destroyed by the attacks by the media---only Iraq is because that's what we had the capacity to do. We can't do every country at once.
I agree, I think we should intervene more. We should be in about 10 African coutnries, except liberals liek you would decry "punishing black people" by keeping them from being killed.
"Downing street memo"
---Downing street memo=US wanted to oust Hussein. Trying to build a case for it. Wow, groundbreaking. Yep, Bush lied by making a factually-based case.
"And while those other countries may have thought a weapons program existed, they weren't silly enough to base their case for an invasion on such flimsy evidence."
---No, they didn't want to go in because 1) Most don't like military action because of heavy liberal, anti-war protests groups in their nations; 2) France was involved in Oil-for-food scandals; 3) the knee-jerk anti-U.S. feeling.
remember: Clinton went into Sarajevo despite not getting UN approval.
"Well, demographically, they are the only two countries in the area with Shiite majorities, so it makes sense."
---that makes as much as stating that because France and Italy are Catholic, they must've always been allies.
Such a leap of logic is fallacious, RG.
Lots of phrases can be used to describe Atlas Shrugged, but 'conveniently totable' isn't one of them. The thing is a doorstop. Even the pocket paperback won't fit in your pocket. If you want something more conveniently totable and equally thoughtful, I'd suggest 'Will' by G. Gordon Liddy. It has the benefit of being true!
Basic Fact:
I think I could propose a better summary for your proposal:
Take up the White Man's burden--
Send forth the best ye breed--
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need;
To wait in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild--
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half-devil and half-child.
Take up the White Man's burden--
In patience to abide,
To veil the threat of terror
And check the show of pride;
By open speech and simple,
An hundred times made plain
To seek another's profit,
And work another's gain.
...
My children and I, however, have some things to do in our lives other than seeking another's profit or working another's gain. Please feel free to volunteer yourself to invade and occupy and remake all the dark corners of the world, however. Really, don't let me stand in your way. (As an aside, how many times have we set Haiti to rights, again? How has that worked out so far? Maybe we ought to perfect our invade-and-save-them-from-themselves routine on Haiti first, and then go on to the rest of the world?)
They can work or they can die. Its their choice.
Megan,
It may not be an exact comparison to the productive going on strike, but the end result is much the same. Look at the growth of Lawyers over the last few decades. These are not "productive" members of society, but merely a necessity to navigate the exploding amount of regulations on the books. Each intelligent, productive person that engages in the practice of law, could be a person creating real productivity, i.e. cures for cancer, improvements in technology, cheaper and better food, more supply of doctors and physicians. The same can be said of the burgeoning amount of Lobbyists. As the government explodes in size, the lobbyists will explode in numbers. Again, these are not productive members of society, but are simply in response to the influence of government. Look at the number of accountants and government beaurecrats. Again, these people could be put to productive, innovative uses, but instead are a direct consequence of government and regulations, sapping the productivity. Ultimately this is "Going John Galt", just not going on strike, but instead going to the non productive segment of society. Same result. And some might argure they'd be better on strike instead, because in their current capacity, not only do they lower overall productivity, but ultimately increase the stranglehold on the productive.
The woman was one of the most appallingly evil thinkers of the 20th century. Jesus Christ, Atlas Shrugged is practically a paean to genocide. Why do people still listen to her?
I'm with the people noting that most of the annecdotal "drop out and cut back" plans people are positing aren't really Gaultian. They seem Laffer-Curvian to me.
That's actually a lot scarier. Because the effect may be Trickle-downian.
FWIW, I too am strongly considering cutting back on working hours (and expenditures) if my marginal rates go up in any meaningful way, because it's not worth it to me at the margins. (Hell, I don't think they pay me enough now to put up with the crap I do, but nevermind.) Ideally I'd do this by just moving to a lower cost area, where I'd make maybe 1/2 what I do now and only work 40-ish hours a week.
I'm definitely one of those people about whom most of the anti-Randian posters on this thread would proclaim - Go! Drop out! Do us all a favor! Damn lawyers! You don't do anything useful anyway! I wouldn't necessarily disagree.
But the single mother I employ to take care of my kids while I'm doing nothing productive for society for 60 or 70 hours a week wouldn't agree if (when) I cut back to 40 hours, or move, or just lose a few thousand per year in net income to taxes, and fire her. The poor saps who are hoping to sell me their house in a decent school district in commuting distance from NYC will lament that I will now pay only $700K, not $850 - and that only if they blew their HELOC on redoing the kitchen and bathrooms recently. Even my coffee guy, Mulaj, will see some fall off in business at his kiosk if I move or fund my partial drop out by drinking my joe at home.
Mulaj is a great guy - he doesn't deserve that. But there's only so long that feeling responsible for being the sole source of income for my nanny's family, or guilt over benefiting from another's foreclosure or short sale, will keep me working an extra 20 hours a week for 30 or 40K in takehome pay that I simply don't need. I'm overpaid, remember? If I don't need that extra few thousand the G plans to hit me up for, maybe I really don't need the next few thousand, either.
If I quit or cut back, will someone else take my job? Maybe. Socially worthless or not, I'm fairly hard to replace - believe me, if they could easily replace me with someone, say, from another line of business (or even the same business) or just out of school, they'd never have paid me a salary inflated enough to support an entire second family in the first place. My work, and the income I formerly injected back into the economy, won't be easily, or entirely, replaced.
Who cares, other than my nanny? Maybe no one. But multiply me by all the other whining, malcontent, overpaid and overworked worker bees, and you may have a big problem if your plans depend on our marginal income still being there.
My dad (Bearded Dork) just bought four rifles, three shotguns, two gun safes and a 9mm in a pear tree. If you knew how boring and conservative he normally is, you'd know that's quite a big deal.
Class warfare is erupting. The social fabric is tearing. It's not just economics now.
Posted by Bearded Twat | March 5, 2009 11:20 AM
Who gets brain clean-up duty, you or your "wife," Bearded Palms?
Megan, the difference between you, politicians, and most economists and Ayn Rand is that the latter never pretended to know how to "generate a framework by which a person or society can order itself." You even go further to say that Ayn Rand "didn't quite get how human beings worked", well, do you know how they work? Or to paraphrase M Friedman, "who are the angels that are going to control how human beings (should) work"?
I think you get a much better sense o the flaws of Rand's thinking from The Fountainhead than anything else. The most obvious example being that Rand is clearly sympathetic to Roark and regards everyone else as foold for not appreciating his unique designs, which completely ignores the basic principle that, if you want to sell something, you need to design it such that the buyer likes it. Drawing something you like that no one else does is ok, I suppose, but it's not all that surprising if no one decides to buy it from you. That Rand seems to fundamentally mistake the basic dynamic in this sets up much of the logical flaws inherent in the rest of her work.
Altas Shrugged totable beach reading?? Once again MM gives strong evidence she writes before thinking. The paperback edition of Atlas Shrugged is 1184 pages, and according to Amazon.com weighs 1.7 pounds - totable if you have your own personal shirpa, which would be a totally Randian kind of thing to do. The Cliff Notes, OTOH, is 144 pages and weighs five ounces, which may be what Ms. McArdle had in mind.
"But she was actually a really very gifted observer..."
That's a lot of adverbs, huh?
Are there such fine gradients of talent separating gifted observers? Would an actually gifted observer be more or less astute than a really gifted observer? How about a very gifted observer?
Does an actually very gifted observer trump a really actually gifted observer? Inquiring minds...
"Her philosophy does not work, at least if by work we mean generate a framework by which a person or society can order itself."
Work for whom?
You alone get to decide if something works for you. Similarly, you don't get to decide if something works for others, particularly if they say otherwise.
Also, you need to check your premises. A rational individualist, who consistently integrates her principles (i.e., doesn't drop them for the sake of pragmatism), doesn't want to "order society." Minding your own business (which is not being a hermit in the woods, but simply recognizing that if you're not one of the two parties in a mutual, consensual exchange of values, you should butt the hell out and not presume to dictate to the interested parties how they should conduct their business) is a matter of ethics, not a "blueprint" for how to rule others. Indeed, the two are mutually exclusive.
Two points-
There's a bit of dishonesty going on here as to the top tax rate under Reagan - yes, it was 28% by the end of his term, but it was at least 50% all the way up until 1986, and 38.5% in 1987. And since, IIRC, the bulk of the boom times under Reagan happened prior to the '87 stock market crash, it's somewhat difficult to argue that economic growth can't or won't happen under relatively high top tax rates. Data here:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213
Second, I think a comment made by Joy up top needs a lot more recognition - insofar as high earners do "pull back", there are a lot of people - younger, hungrier, poorer people - ready to replace them. If you're a consultant, or a lawyer, or an entrepreneur who thinks that time with your family is more important than the extra money you'd get these days from working, great, more power to you. But don't think that the work you're not doing will go undone - there are plenty of people in their 20's and 30's who'd love to have a shot at the extra income, especially in this recession.
Basic Fact:
"well, besides his flaunting UN sanctions, harboring terrorists, being a good place as a counterweight to Iran in the region, murdering people, and setting an example for domino democracy---conveniently destroyed by the attacks by the media---only Iraq is because that's what we had the capacity to do. We can't do every country at once."
Iraq was a counterweight to Iran BEFORE we went in; only its absence created a vacuum. Murdering people and harboring terrorists? Why not invade every country in the Muslim Middle East?
Domino democracy? The domino effect in either direction is pure fiction, merely wishful fantasies for self-proclaimed foreign policy experts. We learned that during the Cold War, please God don't repeat history here.
"I agree, I think we should intervene more. We should be in about 10 African coutnries, except liberals liek you would decry "punishing black people" by keeping them from being killed. "
With what men? What army? If you're so against the rich subsidizing the poor of America, why should they subsidize the poor of Africa? Because the money goes to the Pentagon first?
The idea that the super wealthy people in this country are somehow paying more than their fair share falls apart when you realize that they could not possibly have created any of their wealth without the society around them. The idea that all of their wealth is solely the product of their own brilliance and productivity is utterly naive.
How do you suppose Bill Gates would have fared if he'd been born in Cambodia instead of the US? If Buffett had been born in Bangladesh? If you could have asked them, just before they were born, to bid on the opportunity to be born in the US, what percentage of their future income do you think they'd have been willing to pay to avoid the likelihood of being murdered by the Khmer Rouge? Pretty goddamn high, I'd say.
Who gets higher value out of national defense, Bill Gates or an 18-year old unemployed kid in Harlem? How much of Warren's income is it fair to ask him to pay so that we will send our children to far away people to kill other people to protect his way of life?
How much of Bill's wealth is it fair to ask him to share in exchange for knowing that a violent throng of hungry people will not tear down the gates of his massive estate, rape his wife in front of his eyes, chop off the arms of his children, and then torture him to death?
Donald Trump has made a fortune buying and selling property. Where do you think those "property rights" come from, God? They are granted to him and protected for him by a society based on law and people who believe in the rule of law. We grant him those property rights because it is in our society's economic interest to do so. Maybe you think taking more of his wealth will make the whole society poorer. That's possible. But cut the bullshit about fairness.
Fairness is not defined solely by the relative contributions of individuals. It is defined better by the contribution relative to the benefits received. Businesses price their products according to what the customers are willing to pay, not the cost of producing the product. If the government did that, the wealthy would be paying a hell of a lot more of their income than they are now. A hell of a lot more. In business, competition drives prices toward marginal cost.
Well, the wealthy are free to go choose one of the US's competitors if they think the price the US is charging is unfairly high for the benefits they derive from living here. I don't see too many of 'em going, do you? To the contrary, people the world over long to come here.
Atlas, take your f-ing load and go see if someone in Burma will help you bear it.
Jim @ comment #1: Try Haiti or Somalia. They have really low tax rates - much lower than those hellholes like Denmark and France and Norway and Spain. Right?
Most of the 20-30 year olds in this country already have such an entitlement mentality that the idea that they are going to be the next generation of entrepreneurs seems pretty far fetched. This is the group that thinks they should get A's for effort and raises and promotions just for showing up at their jobs.
When produtivity is punished and non productivity is rewarded you are going to get less productivity. It is a very simple and universal truth.
There may be a small sub set of over achievers who are always going to achieve despite disincentives, but the vast majority of people aren't going to buck the trend.
I may have missed a comment bringing up the following point, but the endless back and forth about tax rates and numbers and deductions, without anyone on either side citing any actual source was making my eyes cross. Anyway: here it goes:
Doesn't anyone get that some people work because they like it? Have all you poor drones been stuck forever in dreary jobs you hate and never felt any satisfaction at something you have done, even if were weren't paid top dollar (or as much as somebody else for it)? Are there no scientists who devote hours of hard lab work for the opportunity to discover something new? No artists or musicians or struggle to bring something of lasting beauty into reality, lawyers who litigate for causes they believe in, doctors who take their oath seriously? No one who does anything for its own sake, like perfecting a tennis stroke or collecting a stamp or seeing a rare bird in a marsh, examine Saturn through a telescope, read Shakespeare, or learn to play the clavichord (a hobby BTW of Wm F BUckley) just for the sheer delight of it? Is it all just for more money (in which case there will never be enough, cf. the case of Donald Trump), to buy a bigger car or flaunt a rock or be able to brag about your vacation in Cancun?
To be able to show that you can make money...oh Thorstein Veblen, where art thou????
It strikes me that people who take extreme positions, like Randbots, Larouchies, and Stalinists, (I lump them together in terms of style, not content) get to enjoy being provocative and eccentric and "interesting" because somewhere in their hearts (however deeply hidden even from themselves) they know there is not the chance of the famous snowball in Hell that they or anyone else will have to live in the Hobbesian state of nature that will result from their narcissistic maunderings. (I can't include Rand herself in this...I think she really meant it and tried to live it...and we see how well that worked out for her.)
The ravings of the white supremacists are different. Even though their hero 88 (HH) managed to destroy his own nation as well as major parts of others, they mean business and if things get much worse economically they will become a serious threat...without the Great Depression would 88 and his thugs ever have gotten to the levers of power in what had been Europe's most advanced and cultured state? Highly doubtful. And make no mistake, you radical individualists: they will come for you first, and if you have lived only for your own little selves there will be no one to help you.
The Christianists are just as determined, but seem to have lessened now that their major cattle-drovers like Falwell have gone to their reward (a warm one, I hope). Of course, if they ever get their theocracy they will come for me, a Jewish atheist, first.
The author seems not to understand that Ayn Rand wrote a novel to show how the world could be rather than how it appears to most people. That is one of the differences between fiction and the non-fiction that is supposed to appear in magazines like The Atlantic. To say that Atlas is a work of science fiction, and therefore unrealistic, rather than world-class literature would require a hell of a lot more analysis than I have seen here, or anywhere else, for that matter. Calling names does not pass for serious literary analysis, either and I wouldn't even bother to answer someone who called me a name.
Jack - In that case, you're a moron and the point went thataway. Megan's shockingly sensible (to me) point was that Atlas Shrugged described the motivations and behavior of characters that does not represent how actual human beings are. That's why it's generally considered fourth-rate literature. Megan isn't criticizing the events that take place, she's criticizing the characterization.
Finally, to all you propeller-headed randroids declaring your intention to flee the country if the top marginal tax rate increases from a capitalistic 35% to a commie 39.5%, nobody cares. Leave. The world will go on. You are not needed.
Of course tax rates can get too high, and of course they have an impact on behavior. Boooo hoo. Life is tricky and messy that way. Deal with it, you crybabies. We're not anywhere close to the 90% tax rates of the 1920s and later or the 50% tax rates of the Carter and Reagan years. So go. Right now.
Why Jane Galt then?
Like I said, class warfare mentality, extreme hostility to anyone that has actually been successful and thinks maybe they deserve to keep the fruits of their labor. Gee, how selfish.
Stop with the bs about the marginal tax rate utopia, everyone knows that very few if any people ever actually paid the top marginal tax rate on their income. Ask Warren Buffet, who paid I think 19% in taxes. That's the real world.
Ayn Rand wrote for dreamy adolescents, geeky outsiders who like to be told they are secretly superior to all those other kids who were out somewhere getting laid.
It's embarrassing to run into an adult who takes her seriously.
Its just too bad that Rand's critics are seemingly so blinded by their anti-republican or anti-conservative views they do not want to even examine how her philosophy applies very true to their own lives. Even people on the right are embracing her ideas despite the fact that Ayn Rand used reason (and her consistent philosophy) to criticize republicans i.e. it is very pro-science(embryo research) anti-religion, pro-abortion, and pro-gay rights (actually anti-special priviledges for the married) to name a few. Who is open-minded now?
We can do our part by slowing our consumerism for the next 6 months....I think the United States will be easier to rebuild than to repair once Obama gets finished wrecking it. So buy food, buy your medications, buy guns, ammo and gasoline...but nothing else. I am sitting this economy out... Consumerism is a byproduct of a strong economy not its cause.
Quick, Maw! Round up the livestock and break out the guns! LIBERALS a-comin'!
What does Ayn Rand's vision of libertarian idealism bring in the real world? Corruption, oligarchy, wealth concentrated at the top. It wasn't the people at the bottom who created the dot com bubble, or the housing bubble. It was the douchebags on Wall Street who turned wealth creation into a massive shell game and got rich on the backs of the people they duped into risky mortgages.
The great myth in America is that every one who has been "successful" in wealth earned it, themselves. The truth is, wealth is mostly inherited, with a rare few being "self-made." But suggest that to the middle class Joe the Plumbers of the world who believe in the myth, and you're branded a socialist radical.
Don't tell me that Walmart associates and blue collar workers aren't working hard to earn less than a living wage, or possibly harder than the Wall Street bankers and stock brokers. It's just that the opportunities just aren't there for a lot of Americans.
We tried it the Ayn Rand way from the early 80's on, and it's been discredited. No government means no rules, which means that regular people get screwed while the people at the top make off with 99% of the country's wealth. You need a gatekeeper, and that gatekeeper doesn't have to be the Communist Party -- there's points in between the two extremes. But hey, veer from the conservative orthodoxy just a little bit and you're a radical.
It's no wonder the Republican approval ratings are in the toilet. They dominated our politics from Reagan through Bush II, and then messed everything up. But hey, keep telling yourselves that it was because they weren't "conservative enough" -- if you believe that, then there's really no hope for you.
For every Galtian who threatens to leave the country and take his treasured productivity elsewhere (where?), there are probably 100 highly educated, highly motivated, highly entrepreneurial kids from India and China waiting for visas to come here. There are probably thousands of people in the world who would and could hand over $1 million and buy a vacant house if we would let them in.
So, Galtians, we will not so much be losing you as we will be making a trade. Off you go now, and don't forget to pack your lunch. Be sure to send a postcard from whichever country you find that treats you more fairly than we did. If you decide not to go after all, be sure to get home in time for dinner so you don't worry your parents.
Basic Fact-
Ummm... yeah... where to start. Let's see racking up a trillion to take out one man? One man who had nothing to do with 9/11? Where's the man who planned and executed 9/11? Saddam was a bad man, I get it. BUT SADDAM WAS NOT A THREAT. EVER. OBL HATED HIM. THEY DID NOT WORK TOGETHER. HE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11. Get your Basic Facts right.
Rand's argument (and most uber-libertarian arguments) is great if you live in a vacuum, kind of like the utopic vision of Marx would be just peachy if that damn reality didn't get in the way.
So we WASTED $1 trillion. Why does this matter? A trillion over 8 years that we haven't even started to pay down? Oh yeah, because that could be the $1trillion that Bush used to set up these "great producers", these ultimate Randian Archetypes of high finance. In the end, the number borrowed could be smaller over all.
Ummm... the other thing, Obama CUT TAXES FOR EVERYONE ELSE besides those making over $250,000. And even then, he hiked the income tax rate 4% for amounts over $250,000. So basically jackasses who are "going galt" right now are turning down a dollar to save 4 cents. Nice work dipshits. And yes I'm aware of other adjustments to be made. Warren Buffett has pointed out in the past that his secretary pays a higher effective tax rate than he does. Maybe that'll change now.
Obama is now in a catch 22. Big time. If he let all of these companies fail under your utopic vision, then our country would be a s#@%pile right now. With no money for anyone, anywhere. Ron's business that he had the luxury to cut back on would be gone instead. And then you would bitch because the government let it happen. And you would bitch and bitch about how it's the Democrat's fault. Or he does what he's doing and tries to create at a minimum a soft landing and a lower floor to this mess and you bitch anyways.
Lastly, if you want to take credit for the Republican Congress in the 90s, then I guess the Dems get credit for lowering taxes in the 80s?
I don't see how we're going to rebuild or repair the economy once Obama is finished wrecking it.
So, far the market has been in absolute free fall since his election with signs of a bottom. That means millions of people's life savings are being wiped out. When everyone's 401K is down by 75% with no end in sight, they will look to the government. What is the point of working and saving instead of going on welfare if everything is wiped out.
The financial system is completely insolvent and all Obama is doing is shoveling money into the black hole, with not a peep on new regulations for derivatives, short selling or anything that would bring back some sanity into the market for the first time in at least 20 years.
And now, in addition to his stimulus that won't create anything but federal gov. jobs and his bank bail out that isn't working and won't work and his mortgage plan for irresponsible 'home owners' he is embarking on yet another massive government entitlement program..universal health care.
I can't even imagine that the most draconian tax increases could pay for all this without grinding what is left of the private sector to a complete halt.
When Obama is finished the government will control 40-50% of the economy with a debt structure spanning decades, and then it will be too late.
Yay, an Atlas Shrugged thread. After many years of hearing about Rand's magnum opus, I finally read it this past week. Putting aside her philosophy and economics, Rand's characters are deliciously one-dimensional. Let's just choose one of the characters: Francisco d'Anconia.
Francisco Domingo Carlos Andres Sebastian d'Anconia is an Ubermensch so flawless that he makes the Silver Age Superman seem down to earth. The very first time he puts his hand on a baseball bat, he smacks a thunderous homerun. The very first time he steps into a speedboat, he launches it to top speed perfectly. After only a bit of intro algebra, he effortlessly develops differential calculus. Of course, this is all on his way to learning the family business so well that he intends to double the largest fortune in the world. Knowing Rand, if he didn't do the Galt, he would have gotten 1000% return in just his first month, before his 21st birthday.
Francisco's only flaw? A pathetic attachment to Dagny Taggart. (Pathetic from John Galt's point of view, not mine...) Kryptonite is a more subtle weakness. Kryptonite! lol. Everyone of Atlas Shrugged heroes are like Francisco. Everyone of the bad guys ("looters") is physically ugly, soft-mouth, fat, weak, etc. etc...
It's a good thing that Rand's greatest genius was as a novelist. Lord help us if she decided to go into banking.
Democracy depends on a strong and contented (or at least hopeful) middle class, and middle classes are inventions of the government. They don't happen naturally. So what we, as a people and a nation, have to do is socially engineer this country to get the things we want in terms of broad-based prosperity, a minimal level of security, and a nice, open, relatively free liberal society.
The best way of socially engineering a country is to elect smart, ambitious people who have studied these things and appear to know what they're talking about, within a framework of checks and balances and frequent elections.
Raise your hands - how many randroid heads just exploded? Heh.
For an actual Atlas Shrugged moment, see Stewart, John, The Daily Show, March 4, 2009. He eviscerated the shylocks of CNBC.
I almost forgot - it takes a lot of tax money to pull this off. So we should raise taxes right away, mainly on rich people. Bye.
If any of the John Galt's posting on this forum have actually invented a generator that draws static electricity from the air and has the potential to truly create a utopia on Earth, than I believe you will be sorely missed and I will seriously consider voting libertarian, since clearly current policies are having a negative effect.
If, on the other hand, all of the John Galt's posting here really do nothing more than arbitrage the creative work of other people, or arbitrage the reputation of your college degree, or rely on the creative power of their parents and grandparents passed down to them by operation of law and custom, then all I can say is that recent events have show you types to be utterly averse to responsibility, and quite replaceable.
An MBA doth not a John Galt make, nor a small business loan, nor salesmanship, nor, really, wealth.
Jamie - Well said. If I remember correctly (it's been a long time), one of the heros is some kind of big-time copper magnate from Argentina or Chile, correct? And the guy inherited the mines from his parents. Ah, unearned wealth and noncreative mineral extraction, what romantic literature you make.
My favorite take down of Rand's "philosophy" is in Sewer, Gas and Electric by Matt Ruff. Highly enlightening. Very good read. Entertaining. The funny part is, I'm actually a fan, I just realize that her "philosophy" is as unrealistic as communism in creating utopia.
But I still have to say that I think Rupert Murdoch makes a dashing Wynand, and Rove a great Ellsworth Toohey.
My exposure to Rand was practically zilch until a few years ago, watching the film of The Fountainhead. It is, of course, hilarious from any perspective, but even more fun to imagine it if it was exactly the same except Roarke sucked and just thought he was great.
I was spurred to learn more about Objectivism and am stunned, stunned to find it has actual adherents. Institutional hubris isn't just a problem in dealing with people Megan, it's a problem in trying to execute an economy. Nobody knows anything. The minute you think you know something is the minute you're sunk. I was gobsmacked to learn of Greenspan's connection to Rand, but it explains a lot. The problem is that superior people are never as superior as they think they are, and a lot of objectively not-superior people think rather more highly of their talents than they should. Hello, economic meltdown, not to mention three decades of falling real wages. Hello CEO pay that's about 100x of actual skill replacement value. Hubris. Utterly misplaced hubris (and therefore it's inverse, finding rationalizations for utterly misplaced devaluing of classes of others). As an organizing principal of life! Hilarious. And boo. Or as we say these days, "Epic fail!"
@ron
"I would estimate my after tax income has only dropped a few percent, but without the hassles, liabilities, and tax issues of so many employees (and much more free time) the tradeoff is well worthwhile to me (albeit very negative to society)."
I see this type of thinking a lot, and it seems very egotistical to me. There's no reason why the tradeoff ought to be "very negative to society".
We forget that, while at a macro level the relationship between individuals' productivity is positive sum (i.e., everyone working harder makes the economy as a whole better off), the relationship between individuals/businesses in an economy is often zero-sum. Particularly if you are in a competitive business, there's no reason why someone else won't just expand theirs to make up for your loss of productivity.
Since you're apparently at the point where you can CHOOSE to work less and still be ok, you have opened up economic activity for people who will be more than happy to take business away from you because they depend on the income more...
Darrell:
I think you should try reading Rand, not judging her philosophy on a (hideous) movie and a few wikipedia searches (i'm just assuming). As someone else on this thread said, Integrity is key. And so is Responsibility. CEOs with multi-million dollar golden parachutes for failing companies neither have integrity or responsibility. Ditto for banks telling people making $30K a year they can afford a Million dollar home, or those people who chose to believe it (My husband and I were sold the same bill of goods at our "pre-approval" meeting - we didn't buy it, and did our own math to figure out what we could really afford) Be Responsible, and work and live with the utmost Integrity. No one was acting in their own best interest, which one would think is counterintuitive, but our culture is one of immediate satisfaction guaranteed, so we have forgotten how to wait and work toward something, ultimately working in our own best long-term interests. This is a way of live that Rand would rail against were she still alive.
I recall the piece by Dr. Helen shortly before the 2008 Election. Became infamous in restaurant circles (of which I am employed), because she advocated "going Galt" on your waitstaff. She suggested people stop tipping servers, but then let it be known that the real reason wealthier people should engage in this behavior would be to "punish" the waitstaff, as one could assume they were likely Obama voters.
Not of course everyone knows Dr. Helen is a blustering fool, and would never actually engage in this behavior in a restaurant, especially one she enjoys and frequents often. Because any self-respecting manager would make it quite known to her that she shouldn't show her face there again. Loudly. In front of other "important" diners and members of her social circle.
The notion that Atlas is shrugging because of liberalism/Obama is laughable. Whatever one might think of his proposals, stimulus package, budget, etc, we came to the brink of collapse and are in this economic quagmire because Ayn Rand had her wet dream come true: a mostly unregulated, laissez faire financial system that had almost no government oversight at all. The result was excess and a number of bubbles (not just real estate, but in stocks, securitized products, credit default swaps, etc, basically risk was presumed to not exist). The bubbles collapsed, and now Atlas shrugs.
the relationship between individuals/businesses in an economy is often zero-sum. Particularly if you are in a competitive business, there's no reason why someone else won't just expand theirs to make up for your loss of productivity.
They'll also take advantage of the reduced competition to charge less competitive prices, i.e. higher ones. So society as a whole still ends up worse off. Decreased competition is always bad.
@Bosch's Poodle at 2:35 PM...
Yes, that's Francisco d'Anconia, the Argentinian copper scion I was talking about! Although Francisco inherited his wealth, he was going to demonstrate his Randian virtue by growing it by 100%. The d'Anconia family was so virtuous that they were able to produce an unbroken line of firstborn male heirs ever since Sebastian d'Anconia immigrated to Argentina from Spain with no money back in the 1500 or 1600s. Not only that, but each and every male had increased his father's fortune by at least 10%.
This was not a gift from God (who is just a superstition according to Rand). It wasn't chance either. No, the d'Anconia heritage was a paean to vigorous, masculine, profitable virtue. The story of Francisco and his family is just another gem in the timeless treasure that is Atlas Shrugged.
AYN RAND IS STILL DEAD
I find it amazing that America and others failed to learn from the unregulated American capitalism of the 19th century, with its wild booms and busts and great monopolies, oligarchies and trusts. Additionally, they might have learned from Dickensonian England with its unregulated capitalism and the impoverished state of its people.
One can lay this crisis squarely at the feet of the anti-Keynes public figures like Jack Kemp, Milton Freidman, Alan Greenspan (that once devoted fan of Ayn Rand), etc etc etc for blithely believing that most people running corporations and such are fundamentally good when in fact they are neither, just people with all the temptations that go along with almost unlimited temptation.
Ayn Rand's objectivist movement died when she and one of her followers announced to their respective spouses that they would have an affair because they were intellectually superior and it was natural for them to fall in love. (from N. Brandon's book)
Perhaps Greenspan et al should have realized that fiction is fiction (Ayn Rand claimed to have read very little and that she invented her ideas without being influenced by anyone else.) building an economy on something that sounds neat is rather unintelligent.
As some commenters have noted, the have "Galted" and chosen not to work so that they don't have to pay what they consider an onerous amount of taxes to the government. Is anyone aware of a study ever done on the "underclass" of America to determine how many of them don't work for the same reason? I know of childhood friends who still live with their parents, and have little skills and have decided not to work because it is not worth the hassle to bring home $3-4 an hour after taxes; which is probably the most they could earn in the legitimate economy. I am curious to know how much this phenomenon affects all classes, not just the "upper" classes.
"I started Galting in 1992.
I have an IBM computer "clone" business in the 80s, which I sold in 1992"
So you stole someone esle's idea, made money, and then left the business. It has irreparably harmed America evidenced by the lack of PC availabity and choice since 1992. Congratulations on making some cash and getting out, but guess what, we haven't missed you. And for the rest of you, I would bet 99.9% of you either have businesses/jobs, that if demand is there, you will be replaced asap. And no one will care where you are. I fall under no such delusion that in this capitalist society I am not replaceable. Atlas Shrugged is 1200 words that can be reduced into two: Bureaucracy sucks. No shit, Ayn, too bad you didn't live longer to write 1500 words on the sky is blue. Folks, you people don't run the railroads in the 19th century.
Brandon T.-
You have obviously missed the point that the market only works logically (in the way you describe) when people such as Ron are engaged in it. That businesses are created by the market to take up the demand not being met. It stops doing so when He (and only he) and his Galter friends leave, so that there will not be anyone out there willing to take that dollar he's so willing to turn down. It's just he and the rest of the Galters who produce. No one else can. Therefore all of society will be punished and the Galters will have the last laugh.
And Darrell @2.57, you shouldn't point out that Rand hated croney capitalism. I mean that's just rude. It would mean you would had to have understood her book, not just read it.
New banner: Scudders of the world unite. Any takers?
Aren't these self-proclaimed "Galt-heads" just the right-wing version of 60s hippies?
TUNE OUT. TURN OFF. DROP OUT.
Bring on the patchouli!
Ayn Rand's Objectivism strikes me as the socio-economic equivalent of L. Ron Hubbard's Scientology. Both are products of the Atomic Age and reflect the splitting of perfectly good atoms into destructive nonsense.
The beauty of objectivism, and one of its many similarities to communism, is that it's so pure, idealistic, and generallist that it can fail a thousand times and all the while its practitioners can go on claiming that the theory is still sound because objectivism has "never really been tried." I think Galt would probably argue that from about 1980 to 2008 the government has simply been putting rich people on welfare and making them soft with lucrative contracts and subsidies for things like non-economic mortgage lending. Rand would probably soft-pedal this side of her libertarianism, since she was well aware of who was buying her books, and didn't want to draw any attention to her own very special welfare income, also known as copyright.
Most people "going Galt" refuse to recognize the final moral meaning of it; it's a form of nonviolent social protest, and something you do on account of principle, and you should expect to pay a significant penalty for doing it. It's something you do when there's a recession AND when the market is booming. It's something you do when taxes are high AND low; it's a principled stand for individual rights, and I find nothing more repugnant than people who are claiming to "go Galt" while still collecting medicare, or collecting social security, or living amongst everyone else and using the roads, the police, etc. That's not going Galt, that's just free-riding. The cost of going Galt is living in the gulch, and the fact is that most people couldn't handle that.
tompain, you have it exactly right in your two entries.
You touched one of the fundamental errors of Ayn Rand's bizarre conception of the world: that there are a small number of extremely talented people who are completely irreplaceable.
There is another very basic error: Rand sees free markets as rewarding some indefinite quality like "absolute creativity" or "absolute value of the mind". This is very off the mark. People have been talking very much about a lot about captains of the industry, entrepreneurs and scientists. But the people who started this ridiculous movement are "Dr. Helen", Michelle Malkin and Glenn Reynolds. Will New York collapse without these precious individuals? If you think about many of the examples of people who earn a lot of money, and therefore would supposedly be more interested in escaping (because, after all, they are the ones who sustain the rest of us through their great "income tax burden"), the more you realize that they don't "make it their own" at all, their value is hopelessly relative to the specific society they live in. They are much more dependent on the "moochers" and "looters" than the other way around. Moochers and looters actually would do quite well without them.
Think of some people who make a lot of money right now. Would they be rewarded in Galt's Gulch (or Rapture)? Let's forget Wall street wonder boys for a minute. Think Rush Limbaugh and Britney Spears, Kobe Bryant or Seinfeld. Think bestseller writers, lawyer firms, sport figures, movie stars. How fucked would these people be out of their country? And how irreplaceable at something essential to the basic functioning of a society are they?
So, by all means Galters, feel free to keep the fruits of your new work mopping the floor in Galt's Gulch, because nobody will value the old "fruits of your labor and creativity". We'll miss Seinfeld, but come on, Seinfeld can't really compete with the guy who fixed a broken pipe in my bath room and restored the possibility to take hot water showers. How much is that guy payed?
Ayn Rand is taken seriously only by delusional egomaniacs who fail to recognize their society's contribution in their individual success. And to them I say, shrug away. Less people than you think will even notice...
The comments were a lot more fun when we were discussing out of wedlock birthrates.
Discussing Ayn Rand is almost as boring as actually reading her.
I like a S&M science fiction as much as any breathtakingly stupid wingnut "economics" writer, but you'd think Megan would be too embarrassed to actually recommend Atlas Shrugged to her readers.
I suppose this simply confirms something I've always thought, which is that you can't embarrass a Republican, a dog, or a McArdle.
Most Ayn Rand fans I know are students and writers and have never been in the office with corporate principals of a publicly-traded company when they are scrambling to make their quarterly numbers. I am very pro business and have been lucky enough to be a part of several successful companies. However, being there (as opposed to imagining being there, as Rand did and many politicians tend to) you see that because there is tremendous pressure to make your numbers that you need strict regulation to make sure the company is acting ethically. It's not that most companies are mean, greedy, evil institutions run by mean, greedy, evil people. But they are run by people who are accountable for profit and loss and if those are their only considerations, honesty and ethics will fail. Only someone like Ayn Rand who has never been there could be so absolute about the purity of free-markets.
What Ayn Rand does do well, is she writes good love stories for people who don't like to think they like love stories.
Though I wonder why the women I know who like her don't object to the fact that her heroines are beautiful heiress rather than self-made women. Seriously, how can you consider yourself a champion of entrepreneurs if your heroines inherited their wealth and power rather than earning it?
You rand-o-maniacs do realize, don't you, that ol' Rearden favored paying laborers what they were worth. He had a respect for work and he would consider it beneath himself not to recognize the value of another's effort by paying him fairly for it.
Is that how our economy works now? Did you take into account the value of the Wal-Mart worker's labor when you made the decision to shop there instead of at a more expensive store? Do you ask yourself, hmm, I wonder if Wal-mart shares my Galtian views about the value of honest labor and pays its workers accordingly? Or were you willing to take advantage of the race to the bottom that can be created among unskilled laborers in an economy that doesn't give a shit what their standard of living is.
I thought so.
Excuse me, Mr Immoralist. The speaker for the House requests your presence for the vote. Thank you.
And to Kathryn, the narcissistic bitch above who apparently is among my neighbors in Westchester County: You are not as irreplaceable as you think you are.
How much do you pay your nanny, Kathryn? Did you contemplate the value of her labor to you in setting her wages, or did you just take advantage of the fact that she has few skills and fewer options and pay her an amount that surely does not cover the cost of living anywhere in your neighborhood? Is she on the books? Legal?
F you, Kathryn. You have no clue as to how or why it is you are able to extract your hundreds of thousands of dollars from the economy annually. You have no clue as to what your obligation is to your nanny and to the coffee guy. You owe EVERYTHING to the fact that people who earn about what your nanny earns have died not only to protect your freedom, but to protect your ability to pour gas into your f-ing SUV. You owe EVERYTHING to the fact that the nanny and the coffee guy consent to live in a society in which you are able to purchase that goddamn house you live in and trust that your right to live there will be protected by the coffee guy's policeman brother who you probably complain is overpaid.
Wake the f- up, Kathryn.
I have a long-time friend who's a very smart guy. He actually is a rocket-scientist, or at least he used to be. When I met him I learned that he is a strong believer in Objectivism. Started Objectivism clubs in college, even. At first I thought, well, this is just an eccentricity in my friend, and I'll pay no attention to it. But one day I finally asked him about all the problems that would seemingly arise if you tried to apply Objectivism in our society. I mean, you can't seriously think that all children would get an education, for example, if we left it completely up to individual to pay for it and to send their kids to school. You'd have free rider and prisoner's dilemma and tragedy of the commons problems all the time: why should I pay for the police if Rearden does, why should I pay for a court system if Rearden does, why should I contribute to national defense if Rearden does.
My friend immediately acknowledged all of these things. He said: Oh, yeah, there's a huge educational hurdle to overcome - the society has to be taught first how to live as objectivists. Once they learn that, THEN all these problems will go away and you will have a society that is better off.
You know, I can't argue with him. He's every bit as smart as I always thought. Everyone should follow the principles Rand laid out for individual behavior. BUT THEY DON"T, DUMBASSES. My friend understands that. He aspires to a different kind of society than we now live in, and that's a cool thing to aspire to.
Call me when that day arrives. Until then, if you want to avoid social unrest, you are going to have to suffer the heavy heavy yoke of paying taxes so we can pay the policemen while we wait for you and your fellow citizens to start volunteering to do so.
Goling Galt sounds nice, but is anyone REALLY going to do the full Gultch?
I doubt it.
What will happen is that fringe benefits will be expanded. More days off and vacation time. That will hurt US productivity, but it is not really going Galt.
jamie:
I don't think so. The folks who went on strike found it terribly hard at first, but over time ended up happier. The premise there was that the society was so hostile to them that they were better off just pulling out. The strike absolutely wasn't intended as some personal sacrifice done for long-term collective gain--that's not the sort of thing Rand was going to glorify in her writing!
The truth underlying this is that if it becomes unrewarding to be one of the people who actually does the work, then people with alternatives may very well decide not to do it anymore. In AS, that happened because all the smart, competent people shared the same philosophy, politics, tastes in music, etc. That's silly, of course, but you absolutely can have cultural/social stuff that makes entrepreneurship or striving unrewarding. If your society makes it all-but-impossible to compete with the wellborn idiots who start at the top, or anyone who makes any money in your society is going to find himself obligated to support fifty relatives, your society will also have a hell of a lot less striving for success. If being seen to work very hard marks you out as low-class, or being seen to study too much makes you an outcast nerd, those things will become more rare.
A conscious strike wouldn't work--all the productive people, even all the most brilliant people, don't think enough alike for it to hold together, and don't share enough of the same interests for it to work out. But an unconscious one, reflecting a widespread realization that striving just gets you crapped on, that's totally possible.
tompain: That's a deal. I will take the cost of running the military, as well as the police department, fire department, and public schools in my town. I will divide DoD's budget by the population of the US, the police and fire budgets by the population of my town, and the public school budget by the number of students it serves. I currently pay more than that in sales taxes each year. I'm pretty sure that I don't fall on the "free rider" side of the line. I'm just not sure that the free loaders have figured out which side they are on yet.
"My friend ... said: Oh, yeah, there's a huge educational hurdle to overcome - the society has to be taught first how to live as objectivists. Once they learn that, THEN all these problems will go away and you will have a society that is better off.
... Everyone should follow the principles Rand laid out for individual behavior. BUT THEY DON"T, DUMBASSES ... He aspires to a different kind of society than we now live in, and that's a cool thing to aspire to."
I completely disagree with you here. If a system is not stable enough to survive the introduction of nonbelief, it will never work. By your friend's reasoning, we might as well all be communists. After all, if all people were educated enough, there wouldn't be a problem of incentives in communism systems. And the central party, solely comprised of educated individuals, would act in everybody's interests.
The problem with objectivism, as with communist ideology, is that no amount of education would be enough, because these systems ignore fundamental aspects of human nature.
"The problem with objectivism, as with communist ideology, is that no amount of education would be enough, because these systems ignore fundamental aspects of human nature." Daniel Ferreira
Exactly.
The best quote I ever heard about Ayn Rand was when I was at a friend's house, and he had a copy of Atlas Shrugged sitting on his coffee table. Another friend inquired, in complete seriousness, "So what did they ask him?"
I think that says it all.
As for her books, Atlas Shrugged would be a good read if it were about 3000 pages shorter, including a massive truncation of John Galt's (literally) 60-page speech. Now the Fountainhead I quite enjoyed, and wholeheartedly recommend. Although one must bear in mind at all times that Ayn Rand mostly seemed to just idealize men she found hot.
@albatross: I admit I'm not really talking about AS as much as I'm talking about the adherents-- I'm not talking about people that are drifting down the laffer curve, I'm critiquing bourgeois appropriation of the "John Galt" character to suit the ends of people who want to enjoy all the fruits of living in a first-world nation state while not paying taxes. Objectivism proposes a transformation of human nature away from "judeo-christian morality," charity, dependence... I always read Galt as being primarily a sort of hero fighting against 1-dimensional men in the Marcuseian sense, but I'm a weirdo. But most of his defenders don't want any of this, they still want their soft imperialism and nationalism, their old totems and beliefs and middle-class status and comforts, and just want a theoretical framework to justify not having to pay taxes on it.
Of course I don't believe in any of this nonsense, I'm definitely not a randian, but it's still an interesting topic of discussion.
Daniel, point taken. I still think it is ok for my friend to aspire, but I agree his task is hopeless.
Yawn - you still don't get it. First, its not just you that has to agree. Just because you are not a free rider does not mean a system that depends on everyone voluntarily carrying their fair share will work
Second - the measure of fair comp for all those people you described is not, according to galt - what they earn now. Its what they ought to earn if the purchaser of their services were willing to pay them according to the value the purchaser receives.
Third - you may not think you are a free rider but if we look at what you contribute relative to the value of what you receive, you are. This is because society has charged you nothing for all that has been done for you by those who came before us. Society has charged you nothing to cover your share of the cost of our not having lost WWII. Nothing for your share of the cost of taking the land you live on by force from the indians. Nothing for your share of the risk the founding fathers took when the pledged their lives, their liberties, and their sacred fortunes. You are like kathryn in that you have no clue as to how or why you are able to extract the wealth you do from our economy. Imagine yourself living in the sudan and then think what the value to you would be of getting out of there to here
When companys get a close look at the new COBRA rulings, they will shrug, dropping the health benefits for all their employees as too much trouble and expense. And achievers making over $250K aren't going to play the game either with the new taxes, and they'll shrug too. It is going to be interesting.
I would rather read Twilight than anything by Ayn Rand.
Joel's last line pretty much sums it all up:-)
I'd actually say "We the Living" is a pretty good book that encapsulates the horror of living in the Soviet Union. But being able to describe why Communism is evil is a far cry from having your own utopian alternative that works.
@tompain
Well, I'm not sure you get it. Some of us think there is a very large (and growing) portion of society who do not carry their weight. I'm fairly certain I carry mine. For quite a while we all politely played a game wherein we pretended that my charitable giving was a "social safety net." Somewhere along the way, some people started confusing a safety net for a hammock and have been camped out there with their hands out, palms perpetually upturned.
Second, I'm pretty sure I'm paying those folks along the lines of the value of what I receive. Some of them are unionized, so I guess I should assume I'm overpaying those ones.
Third, why do you assume that the costs of those things have not been passed on to me? But let's assume that there is some uncollected debt there -- explain to me again why it is that I should pay more than an equal share of it? I know, there are plenty of folks who believe that. "From each according to his means" and what not. But why should I believe it?
Margaret,
Really? Your saying someone who makes say $299K in taxable income is going to give up the extra income if the $50K above $249,000 is now taxes at 39.7% instead of 35%. Really that is your argument?
You do realize were talking about a tax of $19,850 vs $17,500. That $2,350 is the final straw, USSR here we come?
Yawn -
You should pay more than equal share because you derive more than equal benefit. Explain to me again why you think what you pay should be equal to 1/population and no other formula? Is that how you would run a business - charge a price equal to your cost? Or might you charge -if you could - a price the customer was willing to pay? The US is pretty much a monopoly supplier when it comes to providing countries in which Yawn and Bill Gates want to live. So how much ought the US charge Yawn? Same as it charges Bill Gates?
I wonder how low a standard of living it would take for you not to categorize as hammock-hanging the providers of the unskilled labor from which you benefit. Have you looked around at all? Do the guys who mow your lawn seem like they are living a life of luxury? The workers at Wal-Mart are doing ok enough for you, eh?
I wonder how it is you think the cost of the things I mentioned might have been passed on to you? Has the government started sending out bills for the value of the accumulated intangible assets that have allowed you to live a non-Sudanian life?
Yawn,
What is anything worth? If you go to Walmart and buy something it requires a cashier, it requires a janitor to keep the place clean. If a person is working full time doing something that is of value shouldn't they be at least paid enough to live a reasonable lifestyle above the poverty level? No one I know of, even Bernie Sanders or Dennis Kucinich (to pick two of the more left wing members of Congress) is proposing full on socialism with all wages equal.
Read up on the veil of ignorance if you want to undertsand liberal thought.
Soemtimes I think the bottom line is Conservatives and Libertarians simply don't recognize how much luck is invloved in determining who is rich and who is poor. Lets take a pretty realistic example. Say two guys of equal intelligence gradutae from college with Computer Science degrees in 1984. One guy grew up in Seattle so went to the UW and ended up at Microsoft. The other guy grew up in upstate NY and went to Syracuse and ended up at IBM. First guy retired in his early 40s a multi millionaire of his stock options. The other guy was laid off in his late 30s and has survived ever since at variosu contract jobs. He makes Ok money but has nothing to retire on beyond what he's been able to save in an IRA and his healthcare is at constant risk. We all know life isn't fair, we're not saying first guy should be taxed and money given to the 2nd guy til they are even, we're just saying it is reaosnable to tax the first guy a little higher so the 2nd guy has decent health care and can at least have a enough Social Security to keep him from the poor house when he retires.
Tompain
Okay. So it is simply a class-envy "you've got more so you should pay more" thing. Not sure I buy it, but I guess some people still think that way.
I think where you and I are close to agreement, though, is where you say we should price things at the level that people are willing to pay for it. If I read the "Galt" types, I think that's what they're saying. At the margin, some of them are saying that they've reached the price that they're willing to pay. (I'm not sure I square that with the rest of the argument -- your other points would make me think that you believe a product whould be priced at the amount that somebody is capable of paying, not what they are willing to pay.) But fundamentally you and I agree, I think, that something is as valuable as what people are willing to pay for it -- no more, no less. But if you think that, then what's your beef with the "Galters"? They are just saying that the anticipated costs of the decisions being made today are more than they are willing to pay.
(And really, I just don't get why the lawn mower guy should live a life of luxury. Same with the Wal-Mart greeter.)
As for past costs being passed to me, here is just one example: Do you not agree that successive generations pay the principle and interest when a country goes into debt to fight a war like WWII? I suspect that, as with most costs of keeping the country going, I probably pay more than my fair share of the accumulated costs of getting us to where we are today.
Soemtimes I think the bottom line is Conservatives and Libertarians simply don't recognize how much luck is invloved in determining who is rich and who is poor.
This, quite frankly, is bullshit. The number of people who get rich through sheer luck is very small. The vast majority of rich people in the US got rich a little bit at a time over decades and through their own effort. Sure, some of them got their through a lottery ticket or its business equivalent. But you don't base an economic system on the outliers.
At the other end of the spectrum, there are a few outliers who are poor because life dealt them a crappy hand, but most of them are poor as a result of their own choices.
Yawn,
Who said anything about a life of luxury?
Lets cut right to the chase do you think anyone who works full time should make enough to have a basic place to live, food to eat and enough extra for a little entertainment, say cable TV and maybe a dinner out and movie once a month?
If not justify morally why.
Tsotha,
Nice job completely ignoring the example I provided. Rather than rich maybe a better way to put it would be how much luck plays a part in marginal differences in income.
And by the way nice job of subtling changigng what I said, a very typical conservative apporach. I never said sheer luck made people rich. The conservative argument is that people get rich through hard work and intelligence. I'm saying it takes hard work, intelligence and some luck.
tompain - sorry the fact that I already stretch to afford a nanny pissed you off so much. You'll be glad to know we're not neighbors. I'm still a renter in a walkup over a bodega.
And sorry about your house values up and huge backlog of inventory up there. I'd be cranky, too. Maybe I'll be up there to bail you out when they drop another 20% or so.
Yawn
"Some of us think there is a very large (and growing) portion of society who do not carry their weight. I'm fairly certain I carry mine... some people started confusing a safety net for a hammock and have been camped out there with their hands out, palms perpetually upturned."
Who are these hoards of bloodsuckers who don't carry their own weight? Please be specific. Now, I assume that people who do not carry their own weight are those elements who, if removed from society (past, present, and a reasonable expectation of future), all the rest of its population would be better off.
"Do you not agree that successive generations pay the principle and interest when a country goes into debt to fight a war like WWII? I suspect that, as with most costs of keeping the country going, I probably pay more than my fair share of the accumulated costs of getting us to where we are today."
You, sir, are very mistaken. Well, there probably was a government deficit and an external debt when you entered the active population, which is ridiculously small compared to the price of building from scratch the things you (and all of us) freeloaded on the work of previous generations, like roads, parks, schools, stadiums, etc.
from previous posts
"Somewhere along the way, some people started confusing a safety net for a hammock and have been camped out there with their hands out, palms perpetually upturned."
"I will take the cost of running the military, as well as the police department, fire department, and public schools in my town."
Follow the hammock reasoning to the end - Why have a fire department? Why should I be forced to pay for those damn idiot free loaders who accidentally set fire to their houses and get free fire department services? I will pay for my own the fires I am responsible, thank you very much.
A distinction between a social net and a hammock is arbitrary. So it should be the sort of thing voters get to decide.
"I think where you and I are close to agreement, though, is where you say we should price things at the level that people are willing to pay for it. If I read the "Galt" types, I think that's what they're saying."
Not really. They are doing this as a form of ideological protest leaded Dr. Helen, Michelle Malkin and Glen Reynolds. Of course, if these people would have true faith in what they are proposing, they would move to a country with lower taxes, or a tax haven. They are just trying to to harm the recovery plan through diminished economic activity in a recession. Which is a pretty shitty thing to do. Fortunately, every example I heard of that has adhered to "going Galt" works in things that are so readily replaceable that, even if the "plan" would take of, there would really be no damage to speak of. Except, of course, to the self-estemm of these people egomaniacal delusions.
"I probably pay more than my fair share of the accumulated costs of getting us to where we are today"
You don't know what you're saying. This is like saying you would be better off if you and a bunch of people were born in a savannah and started from scratch.
"So it is simply a class-envy "you've got more so you should pay more" thing."
No, its a recognition that our current situation is a result of a mix of work, talent, luck and the society we live in. The characters from Atlas Shrugged, with their income absolutely linked to some notion of intrinsic absolute worth independent of the society they lived in, might as well be mythical creatures.
One example - Very few professions are as link to talented, work, and measurable performance as athletes. In addiction, very few people would argue that a baseball player owes its position to inherited wealth or a privileged education. Yet, even in this case they are extremely dependent on the society they live in. No baseball star, even with an 80% income tax, would be getting more money in an European country, for instance. In this sense, though I'm sure there is a great deal of personal sacrifice in becoming an exceptional player, they also owe their prosperity to the place that provided them the opportunity in the first place. So, what happened if a guy like these were to Galt's Gulch? Well, baseball would be a bit worse off. But the player, although free from the "burden of the freeloaders", would be much worse off.
Yawn - are you truly mad enough to believe that the interest and principal on the debt incurred to fight WWII represents the entire cost a previous generation bore on your behalf? The 500,000 dead soldiers have no value to you?
I have no "beef" with these Galtians except that they, like you, are actually phony Galtians. If they can get someone to die on their behalf for free, that's fine with them, the invisible hand did its thing! If you can get some unskilled worker to live in poverty so that you can save money at Wal-Mart, that's ok, invisible hand says those f-ers should live in poverty. Whereas John Galt would recognize the deep debt he owed to people who had died to protect his freedom, and he would respect the labor that the Wal-Mart worker put forth to deliver to him the goods that he desired.
It is ironic that you continue to classify as "class envy" the very perspective that a true John Galt would hold - that just as he is entitled to be rewarded for what he gives to society, he is obligated to reward others fairly for what they give. He is obligated to do this by his own sense of morality, not by a government telling him he must or a church telling him he should, but by his own respect for the value of the effort put forth by a free and enterprising human being.
Your presumption that the value of anything is measured perfectly by the price it can capture in a the market place as we have structured it is arbitrary and circular. We have no way to judge A-Rod's value to society other than by looking at what the Yankees pay him, is that right? And if you are an unskilled laborer mowing the lawn, no matter how many of you there are and how brutally competitive you become with one another to eke out a living, well f-you, that's what you are worth to society, and no living condition is too low to be unacceptable if that's what the invisible hand delivers to you. Is that right? The lawn mower guy can live and work among the wealthiest people that ever walked the face of the earth, and if they can get him in a position where he earns only enough money to buy a loaf of bread each day, well so be it, too bad for him he was not able to become a lawyer, or too bad for him he better move to the next town and hope it doesn't have quite so many unskilled laborers.
I don't think so. For your position to be even remotely right, we would have to have perfectly efficient and competitive markets: perfect information, no frictions, etc etc etc. Surely you don't think that model that you learned in a microeconomic textbook reflects the real world?
Let me tell you what might happen in an alternative system that you are lucky not to live in. That lawn mower guy could band together with the other lawn mower guys and come throw your ass off what you consider to be your property, and announce to the world that the property belongs to them. That's what human existence was like on most of the planet for most of its history. Instead you live in a system where the police will stop them from doing that, a court will confirm you own your property and are entitled to stay on it, etc. etc. And the lawn mower guy's recourse - which he accepts - is to maybe form a union, or to go vote for someone who might force you to share a little bit more of the pie with him, since he is not allowed to use the other way. You got yours, f him. That's your credo.
Kathryn - I could give a shit whether you stretch to pay your nanny or not. What "pissed me off" is your ditzy inability to understand the largest source of difference between your circumstances and hers, and your narcissistic belief that somehow you are so special that the world will actually miss your labor when you withdraw it from us. Open your eyes.
Going John Galt does not necessarily mean quiting work. A marginal decrease in effort, creativity and productivity can have a devestating cummulative effect. When success is attacked, punished and redistributed, the incentives are clear. Productive workers responding to those incentives do not need to declare a strike. Instead, it becomes easier for them to see fewer patients, bill fewer hours, forgo overtime, do nothing to standout from their co-workers -- in short just coast. At that point, like the failed Soviet economy, workers can show up every day at work even though they plan to do very little. They are effectively on strike while standing on the factory floor.
Tsotha, you are as blind as a bat. The luck that made the rich people rich occurred when they were born here instead of in Sudan. Not many rich people in Sudan. Except the ones who rape and pillage. Warren Buffett wouldn't last long. The luck that made the poorest people on the planet the pooreset people on the planet also occurred when they were born.
Even within the US, the effect of luck is enormous. Gates would not be a billionaire if his parents lived in rural Mississippi. Instead he got to go to a high school that had some nice computer labs and programming courses.
There is nothing wrong with being the beneficiary of luck. But you really, really ought not to delude yourself about the extent to which you have determined your own destiny. You have done so only within a very very narrow band of outcomes that were possible for someone born into your circumstances.
Margaret, I am one of your "achievers" earning over 250k, and I can tell you that it has not even occurred to me that I will stop working because my marginal tax rate is going to go up a few percentage points. I don't see how that option is even open to me. I have a job, I have to do that job. I can't choose to do 1/250th less because I am dissatisfied with the marginal pay of the last 10 minutes of my workweek.
I get the point that if you tax something, all else being equal you will get less of it. But there are other things that are important in the economy and society besides just maximizing the measurable GDP. There are things that have utility to us that are not captured in GDP, are there not? When you take time off instead of working, GDP goes down, but that time off has value to you if you spend it with your family, no? So measured GDP goes down but is our society actually worse off? It's hard to say.
Also, doesn't the composition of GDP matter? During wartime our GDP is really high because we make lots of things that we right away blow up. What if total GDP were a little lower but we didn't have to spend the money blowing stuff up and could instead spend the money on stuff we enjoy?
And does the distribution of GDP matter? I mean, the pre-Civil War South probably had pretty good GDP because of all that free labor. Was that ok, or are we perhaps better off now that we don't have slavery - which is another way of saying we have redistributed income from the slave owners to the slaves. Redistribution is always bad? Do you care at all what living conditions are experienced by those around you, or is no level too low as long as you've got what you want?
I think Ayn Rand made some uncanny predictions in both of her books, and if we look around the world today we can identify similar characters and events shaping the news. Every time I hear Rush speak these days, I think of Elsworth Tooey in the Fountainhead. When I read about Venezuela nationalizing their banks, or Iceland needing a bailout, similar situations from Atlas Shrugged arise.
The instinctual thought was if Ayn Rand were alive, she'd be dismayed by the current situation. However, upon further digestion, I believe Ayn Rand would cast Barack Obama as the most "galt-like" character on the scene. I believe she would say Obama represents the return of the Producers, the Thinkers, the Creators. Certainly, she would not have applauded the previous occupants of power--the Mr. Thompsons (cheney), the Orren Boyles and Balph Eubanks--the moochers of the world.
She would not have approved of the prior administrations use of unprovoked force.
True, she maybe skeptical at the amount of money the federal is throwing around, but she would have understood that big messes required big cleanups.
She would have been supportive of anyone working towards developing alternative fuels. She would have believed the science of global warming. She would have been outraged at the lack of integrity displayed by certain corporate giants.
She was no saint, nor did she believe her heroes were saints. But her characters stood for something. While the old folks from Washington, the moochers of today stood for nothing. They stood for greed, not for value--for death, not life. Not like Obama. Obama represents the return. The return of intelligence , capability, discernment, and true leadership. Ayn Rand would have approved of that.
Lets say I have a business.
I have two employees.
Each employee costs me 80 dollars annually
Each employee produces 100 dollars annually
Annually my profits before taxes are 40 dollars.
If 40 dollars of earnings are taxed at 50 percent I still have 20 dollars of earnings left after taxes.
If 40 dollars of earnings are taxed at 75 percent I still have 10 dollars of earnings left after taxes.
If I lay off one employee because tax rates rise and my one remaining employee still nets me 20 dollars of earnings, a 75 percent tax rate will leave me with only 5 dollars of annual earnings.
Why would a tax increase cause me to lay off one of my employees?
Wealth doesn't create labor.
Labor precedes capital.
Scrivener, I suggest a more realistic ending to your wet dream:
"Productive workers responding to those incentives do not need to declare a strike. Instead, it becomes easier for them to see fewer patients, bill fewer hours, forgo overtime, do nothing to standout from their co-workers -- in short just coast. At that point..." people who are not acting like pricks will take their clients and their promotions. Others will advance instead of them. And, sadly, their form of protest will probably never get noticed.
If they overdo the slacking, their asses will get sacked, and their employer will hire one of the more than one million people that have been recently fired. Without a job and unable to find one in the recession, they will finally apply for the same unemployment benefits they so vehemently protested before. And they'll wonder what the fuck went wrong, how could this have happened to them. It never happened to John Galt...
Also, stop using the word "incentive". You don't know what it means.
Fry your example is really a bad one to illustrate any real world businesses.
Name one real world business that has the same model as your scenario:
Each employee costs me 80 dollars annually
Each employee produces 100 dollars annually
It simply doesn't exist. Every single business is faced with fixed costs, operating expenses and necessary capital expenditure towards resources.
You need to look at return on investment.
If you have a 5 million dollar factory and you are making $10 per day, you know what the logical outcome is.
Stop hiring labour. Shut down.
If you anticipate an eventual recovery, like car makers, but think it will be a couple of years before you need to ramp up production, then you slash output by 50% or more today.
"Fry your example is really a bad one to illustrate any real world businesses."
I concede the example is over simplistic but my point is that in order to create wealth there must first be labor. The labor creates whatever product, thing, or service is exchanged for wealth or capital.
Lessening labor will only lessen production, and lessen what can be exchanged for capital.
Some people are suggesting that increasing taxes will force employers to lay off employees and I just don't understand the correlation.
The comment thread is too long for me to read in full, but upthread I saw some misleading statements about marginal tax rates in history.
In 1982, the top marginal rate became 50%. It stayed that way until '87, when it became 38.5% (but in which the bracket became much larger) and 28% only in Reagan's final year in office -- 1988. But this was a somewhat experimental phase in tax policy. Through "temporary" rates of 33% certain high income taxpayers making $71,900 effectively paid a 28% rate on all their income. That is, the 28% was effectively not marginal. Would the people longing for '88 prefer that? Or '82, in which you paid 50% on everything over $85,000.
My point is that the increases are not onerous in historical terms. Also, it would behoove the Galters to remember that the strikers difn't chiefly refuse to work more hours, but to share their extraordinary talent. Reardon invented Reardon Stee; Galt invented the motion machine. Midas Mulligan wasn't Joe T. Banker. He was a Midas. Most of the people on this thread probably work hard and do well, but to Rand, you're more like Dagny's assistant -- if you disappear somewhere, you're witholding won't make society weak, because you're not an ubermensch.
As a correction on my above post, the 28% became more inclusive and less effectively marginal the closer you came to $149,500. But the picture for earners wasn't made rosier by this gentle climb, in part because the lowest bracket rose from 11% to 15% that year and in part because the highest marginal rate of 28% was phased in gradually as you rose above a mere $29,750.
Perhaps the best lesson here is that '88 is not a great year to be citing as representative time for light tax rates. You had a lot of phasing brackets, an increase on the lowest bracket, and a resetting of the nominally highest bracket from $90,000 to $29,750. Simplistic statements about '88 are bound to mislead.
Tsotha, you are as blind as a bat. The luck that made the rich people rich occurred when they were born here instead of in Sudan.
Which doesn't have any bearing on this situation. People in Sudan aren't confiscating a part of my paycheck to spend on their own concerns. Of course I was referring to people in the US.
Even within the US, the effect of luck is enormous. Gates would not be a billionaire if his parents lived in rural Mississippi. Instead he got to go to a high school that had some nice computer labs and programming courses.
He may not have been a multi-billionaire, but there's no reason to assume he wouldn't have ended up wealthy. In any event, like I said, Bill Gates is an outlier. Most wealthy people go that way by saving money they earn at a small business or professional practice. That's not luck.
You have done so only within a very very narrow band of outcomes that were possible for someone born into your circumstances.
I do not believe the band is that narrow. There's no reason for any healthy person born in the US to be so poor he needs government assistance. People get that way through their own choices.
Nice job completely ignoring the example I provided. Rather than rich maybe a better way to put it would be how much luck plays a part in marginal differences in income.
That's not an example. It's a made-up anecdote. The guy who went to work for IBM wouldn't be as wealthy as the lucky Microsoft employee, but there's no reason whatsoever for him to be without savings. You set up a dichotomy of luck being the determining factor between rich and poor, but the poor guy in your example is poor because he didn't save any money, not because he was unlucky.
And the rich guy is an outlier in a big way. As someone who's been in that business for more than twenty years I can tell you technical people who got rich during the tech boom are as rare as hen's teeth. Most of the actual riches from that boom went VCs and to the investment banks fronting IPOs. And the banks got rich not through luck or skill, but through rent-seeking behavior.
A lot of people who were paper millionaires at some point or other due to stock options, but the number of people who had options worth anything after the vesting period is diminishingly small. I know a lot of people who had stock options worth millions at some point, but not a single one saw any significant amount of money in the end.
People in the US aren't confiscating part of your paycheck. They are asking you to pay for the value you receive from being permitted to work in a society that was built by many people other than you, and continues to operate with the consent of many people other than you. You pay so that where you are doesn't become Sudan. Get it?
It's true that most wealthy people get that way by saving money they earn at a small business or professional practice. The luck comes from their opportunity to have a small business or professional practice. Not everyone in the US has that opportunity, for a variety of reasons. If you insist otherwise then you are just being willfully naive.
I have not been discussing (or at least not intending to discuss) government assistance. I have been discussing the ability of unskilled laborers to extract a living wage from our economy, and what we mean by a living wage. You cannot have a stable society in which unskilled laborers who work hard and play by the rules are still unable to achieve a modicum of security and comfort in the wealthiest society the world has ever known. The proof of this is all around you.
The fact is, there are a lot of people in the world who aren't all that sophisticated, or didn't get a good education, or had crappy parents. Some of them are gullible and the Dick Fulds and Angelo Mozillos of the world can profit by getting them to take out a mortgage they cannot afford, and lend them money so they can have the flat panel tv screens that the commercials on tv tell them they must have. And after Dick and Angelo have pushed those people to the brink, guess what happens? Those people say f- you I am not paying back your goddamn loan, Dick. And I am voting in 59 Democratic senators, Dick, so you can't do this to me again. And I am forming a union, Dick, so you will at least have to pay me a living wage when I stock the shelves for you at Walmart.
Tsotha, the question for you is how much labor you can extract from those people on what terms before it all blows up in your face. When you understand that society as you have known it is a privilege to live in, and not at all guaranteed to you, you will see that the distribution of national income matters. If you open your eyes a little wider you will see that the various economic and political structures we adopt - not just the tax code - all have a significant impact on income inequality. The wages a Walmart employee should earn are not inscribed on the tablets God gave Moses. They are determined by our societal structure.
Someone has to staff Walmart for you. How poor are you willing to make that person in order to save a little more money?
There is a political axiom, going back at least
to the Roman Empire, which states:
"When fleecing sheep, or taxpayers, it is wise to
stop when one reaches the skin."
Anyone who thinks the current increases will stop
should book some time with Dr. Helen; The USA is broke, and its current leaders will keep throwing
borrowed money at the problem until we decivilize,
long before they can be voted out of office.
H. Beam Piper coined the term "decivilize", and
observed that it can happen either by losing too
many creative (not productive) people off the top,
or too large a fraction of the Barbarian Base on
which every civilization rests. Hell knows which
will happen first here; They tend to interact,
and alternate.
For those who expect "Another Great Depression";
No, it will be a whole new nightmare, because
The US body politic in 1930 was a strapping young
farmer, and currently it is a Brittle Diabetic.
Those of you who disagree (usually obscenely),
please feel free to disbelieve;
I want you to feel _safe_.
I've never read Rand's novels but I've read most of her philosophy.
Her core premise is that one's thinking must be based on reason which is based upon objective reality. She disliked conservatives like Republicans because they were mystical in their thinking (religious) and liberals because they believed individuals were tools of the collective.
The global house of cards is collapsing because it is built on things that are not real, like paper money that is created out of thin air and laws that only function to enslave certain people to others. (Only people out of touch with reality believe that a "right" to keep slaves exists.)
Rand was a brilliant thinker and iconoclast whose biggest mistake was assuming that most humans are capable of rational, reality-based, thinking. This mess was created by the "best and the brightest" that our culture has to offer.
What does that say about our culture? It is not based on rational, reality-based premises and therefore falling apart as she predicted.
Amazing to read these comments.
All I can say is that you wonderfully hopeful Obama supporters are going to learn some very hard lessons.
1. Borrowing money to give to people to buy things works until you stop borrowing. Imagine the first item in the US fed budget of $1 trillion being interest on the debt. You are over $400 billion now. Interest rates are extremely low right now. They have nowhere to go but up.
2. Increasing taxes does not necessarily generate more revenue. Obama acknowledged that fact. What that represents is a decrease in economic activity. And more debt.
3. If you believe that taxes will only be increased on someone else, 'the rich', you are a delusional fool. Don't argue with me now. Come back in 2-3 years, or whenever they are forced to deal with the budget deficits.
4. Well off people make money by investing somehow. That means putting their resources to work at the risk of losing it for a return. Smart people know how to do the first without the second. Government action increases the risk. If you don't believe that, ask someone who makes toys for children right now if government increases or decreases risk. If these evil well off people don't invest their resources for a return, that means they don't hire people, they don't purchase materials from someone who hires people, etc. Aggregated, that means a smaller or nonexistent increase in GDP.
Derek
tsotha said
"There's no reason for any healthy person born in the US to be so poor he needs government assistance. People get that way through their own choices."
Tsotha, I too believe that, most of the times, the market tends to reward work, talent and caution. I believe in personal responsibility. But it takes a lot of faith to believe in this sort of absolute with the sort of stuff that is taking place around all of us lately.
So, an example from recent news. In the last 3 months, close to 2 million people got fired in the U.S., from a large number of different companies. This number will probably increase in another 650.000 people in February (we will know the precise number tomorrow).
This "market adjustment" didn't happen because of a massive increase in incompetence or laziness. It was a result of a financial crisis, an event that was completely out of these people's control. Consumption slowed down dramatically, companies had to make cuts, so they got fired through no fault of their own.
Now some of these crowd will be able to get a new job, but it's hard to believe that this will happen to the majority. The rest will remain unemployed for some months, perhaps a year. And most of them were working in low paying jobs, so savings will probably won't be enough for such basic expenses such as paying rent, feeding yourself and you children, clothing and, if somebody gets sick, hospital bills. So wouldn't you say that this is a situation in which some people will literally be "so poor that they need government assistance" for a while?
I also believe that unemployment benefits should be temporary and relatively low, to minimize government spending and maintain an incentive to keep people looking for a job. But I am definitely not in favor of a Randian, noble selfishness, "That's not my problem" approach to the problem, which, besides being heartless, will predictably rise homelessness, misery and crime.
Well.. by that count, Tom Clancy should rate as a theorist about security policy as well, after all he wrote about a japanese commercial pilot flying a plane into congress.
Galt, schmaldt... sheesh. If the marginal return on the inputs you take out of production is so low you are willing to take them out, then they are better used elsewhere. {head shaking} Nothing difficult about that, that I can see.
Do taxes reduce the marginal return, and increase the williingness of participants to pull inputs - especially labor inputs from production? Sure.
Is this significant? Not really. Only the least productive - those with the lowest marginal return - will be withdrawn. And this is in an environment of "rational" calculus.
In a situation which I believe obtains, we must consider "animal spirits" as well. And the drive of animal spirits will reduce the willingness of participants to withhold participation relative to decline in marginal return.
Now, as to capital. Capital will be less readily withdrawn than labor - participants in capital markets will be unwilling to let K sit unused. While a low income person might divert K to consumption, such diversion will increase demand and profits, and increase the participation of K from other sources.
Capital investment is the means by which new technology is incorporated into production, and productivity is increased. As long as demand is high and marginal return on capital investment is expected, capital investment in new technology will not be withdrawn.
Low marginal return capital will be withdrawn, and physical plant and equipment of low mrr may languish and go to scrap. That is not a big loss to the economy.
The big loss is what occurs when returns to labor are too low to support consumption, which creates demand supporting profitability, which raises the mrr of capital, which results in incorporation of new technology into the production processes, which increases productivity.
If the benefits of increased productivity do not increase wages and consumption, then the cycle crashes. If the holders of capital take the benefits of increases in productivity and use them to bid up the value of assets instead of the wages of labor, an asset bubble is created and the cycle crashes.
The cycle can only be restarted by reducing disparity between incomes and asset values - that can happen by letting everythinig die or by inflating wages with printed money.
Our choice. This is a human designed and human made system, not one controlled by the laws of physical or even biological system. We get to decide. Print the money to reflate wages, or let the values of assets crash. Either way, parity between wages and asset values must and will be restored.
The luck comes from their opportunity to have a small business or professional practice. Not everyone in the US has that opportunity, for a variety of reasons. If you insist otherwise then you are just being willfully naive.
Or you are. Is there something so complicated about becoming a locksmith, say, or welding pipes together that only rocket scientists can be expected to learn a skill?
And most of them were working in low paying jobs, so savings will probably won't be enough for such basic expenses such as paying rent, feeding yourself and you children, clothing and, if somebody gets sick, hospital bills.
I don't understand why so many people think saving is optional. It's not. Into every life a little rain must fall and all that. Between savings and unemployment you should be able to pay your expenses for a full year. If you can't seem to save then adjust your lifestyle - don't live on the edge of bankruptcy and they come to the rest of us with outstretched hand when your car breaks down. I read that 98% of of poor people in the US have a television. I would never have a television without savings.
I've been poor. I've lived on $500/month (in early 1980s dollars). Even then I was saving money, so I don't see why other people can't as well. You don't need a car, or your own place, or cable TV to survive.
Look, don't get me wrong. I'm not one of those people who thinks we can bring the tax rate to zero. I don't mind paying for the common defense or regulatory agencies like the FDA and EPA. I don't even mind shouldering my share of the burden when it comes to taking care of people who are too physically or mentally defective to provide for themselves, though I think families should be primarily responsible for that.
What I object to are programs that move money from my pocket to someone else's because they were too proud to take a job at WallMart, or because they decided to buy things they couldn't afford, or because they can't control reproductive urges. I especially don't think I should be covering losses for people who bought five houses thinking they were gonna flip them all and get rich.
Now, as to capital. Capital will be less readily withdrawn than labor - participants in capital markets will be unwilling to let K sit unused. While a low income person might divert K to consumption, such diversion will increase demand and profits, and increase the participation of K from other sources.
This would be true if there were no risk involved in investing. Every investment decision is a risk/reward calculation. Taxes leave the risk but remove some of the reward, making marginal risks not worth taking. I'm willing to bet large numbers of people are employed in marginal risk ventures.
What's going to happen is wealthy people will do what they did before taxes were lowered in the '80s - they'll put money in double tax free munis. That will increase costs for the (fewer) businesses trying to expand. It's a great way to stretch out the recession.
tsotha
Or you are. Is there something so complicated about becoming a locksmith, say, or welding pipes together that only rocket scientists can be expected to learn a skill?
I don't understand why so many people think saving is optional. It's not. Into every life a little rain must fall and all that. Between savings and unemployment you should be able to pay your expenses for a full year. If you can't seem to save then adjust your lifestyle - don't live on the edge of bankruptcy and they come to the rest of us with outstretched hand when your car breaks down. I read that 98% of of poor people in the US have a television.
What I object to are programs that move money from my pocket to someone else's because they were too proud to take a job at WallMart, or because they decided to buy things they couldn't afford, or because they can't control reproductive urges.
And just for kicks, here's an Inflation Calculator. http://www.westegg.com/inflation/
Your $500 in 1982 corresponds to $1061.07 in 2007. Yes, the calculator only goes up to 2007. Wal-Mart's median wage of a employee in full time is about $1155 per month. So you actually earned less than the median Wal-Mart employee. Tough times for you there. The poverty line in U.S. is roughly at $1220 per month.
I don't believe that those 1.8 million were too proud to work at Wal-Mart. They probably worked at a similar place, because most of the layoffs affected low-income people. As I said before, the majority of this people won't be able to get a job, simply because the market won't absorb them right now. Companies are in expense cut mode, including Wal-Mart (though, interestingly, not as much as other companies).
About your argument on savings, let's say the average duration people will be unemployed is about 10 months. You really have to be extremely responsible to accumulate a ten-month cushion on this kind of salary. U.S. average personal savings in November were at %2.8 of disposable income. You may say, well, Americans were irresponsible for a long time, so now we must suffer the pain.
But you see, while we were pretty much almost all irresponsible, the suffering is very disproportionally concentrated on the 1.8 million. And these guys had no particular reason to believe that they would suddenly be fired and would not be able to find a job for a such long time. Plus, if you happen to get sick or suffer some other misfortune, you're in much deeper shit than everybody else.
I'm painting a bleak picture here. Among the unemployment there is surely plenty of cases of extreme bad luck, extreme irresponsible behavior, or most often some mixture of both. But my point is, should completely flawless behavior the only justification for government assistance?
Behavioral Economics explains why Ayn Rand's astute observations notwithstanding, her economic philosophy cannot be practically implemented in a sustained manner in a large multicultural nation. Economic actions are more often driven by our limbic system than by our frontal cortex.
I don't think the tax increases will matter much, at least not at the levels that are being proposed. The policies that _will_ make actually productive people pull back are the increasing regulation of day-to-day activities which will go along with de facto state ownership of industries (insurance, banking, auto manufacturing, health care ....). Good people simply don't like to be told how to do their jobs, particularly when it is obvious that the only qualifications that the "directors" have is that they happen to work for an entity that holds a legal monopoly on violence.
Oh yes, also the coming rampant inflation will also serve as somewhat of a disincentive, since wages are set at relatively infrequent intervals, whereas prices will move continuously higher. Savings will decrease and therefore so will investment in new productivity. We won't be able to identify many of the Galts, but, as a society, we will comprise millions of them.
Kathryn - If you're a renter and you have a "coffee guy" and a nanny, perhaps you should manage your finances a little better and take a break from lecturing your betters about how indispensable you are.
Resident randroid tsotha says: "There's no reason for any healthy person born in the US to be so poor he needs government assistance. People get that way through their own choices."
And here we have a great example of libertarian thinking. Despite the fact that there actually are large numbers of poor people, one tsotha doesn't feel there "should be," and so he doesn't have to really grapple with the problem.
Lots of intellectual bravery on display here. Not.
Derek -
1. You don't appear to have noticed, but t-bill interest rates are close to zero percent and will stay that way until they are cashed in.
2. At current (ie, low) tax rates, increasing income taxes increases revenue. This isn't my opinion, it is a fact, and if you feel otherwise, that's because you're wrong.
3. The 'rich' (those making over 200k a year) voted for Obama this election, boyo.
4. Free markets are a government invention. So is the middle class. One only has to compare the places with the smallest governments (Haiti, Somalia, Afghanistan) with those with larger governments (Denmark, France, Norway, Canada) - where would you rather live? If you're not a masochistic psychopath, I think I know the answer.
You seem not to realize that the stimulus package doesn't reflect a general governing theory. It is an attempt to shock the economic system out of a downward spiral. It is, in other words, believed to be the less expensive alternative to doing nothing, which would (most economists believe) cost even more money in the medium and long terms. But - I know - you have an ideology to sell.
I find it hilarious and also pathetic that talk of raising marginal tax rates by less than 5%, to those of the Clinton era, provoke such randroid rage and talk of going on strike and so forth. Seems to me the Clinton years were pretty effing good. Talking about striking 'Atlases' (oh how you wish) makes you look like a moron who couldn't remember 17 years of history if your coffee guy's life depended on it.
I suspect most of you ultra-superior randroids are in your teens or twenties and have never set foot in an executive office and don't earn nearly what you pretend to, and never will. Few people this silly are smart enough to succeed in business, unless you inherited it all, like Rand's heroes and heroines did.
"One only has to compare the places with the smallest governments (Haiti, Somalia, Afghanistan) with those with larger governments (Denmark, France, Norway, Canada) - where would you rather live?"
-Bosch's Poodle
Cause we all know the ONLY difference between Haiti and Denmark is the size of their governments.
Tsotha, you have not answered a question I have now posed twice to you (in different forms): how low a living standard is it acceptable to impose on the person who staffs Walmart for you, or the holder of the pipe welding job whose widespread accessibility you so boldly posit?
Should a full-time pipe welder (or policeman, or wallmart checkout clerk, or locksmith) be able to afford a tv and car and his own place? and to save some money to get him through unemployment periods and retirement and to have decent health care? Maybe be able to raise a family? Or is that too much for him to expect from the wealthiest society that has ever existed anywhere.
What is the minimum standard of living that a hard-working person (not your hypothetical lazy oaf) who plays by the rules (not your hypothetical flipper of 5 houses) ought to be able to extract from our economy?
You're right. The citizens of Denmark are also among the happiest people on earth, and among the healthiest. And their taxes are very, very high.
Bosch, Puerto Rico also ranks very high on the happiness list. Please explain the advantages of their tax system to our own and why we should emulate them.
Daniel,
You missed the point. The productive will not slack till they get fired (that is, afterall, an obvious disincentive). They will simply slack to the point of doing what everyone else is doing or doing what they can get by with. Why should they work harder or take additional risks than the average person, if the benefits are denied or redistributed? Enforcing a strict equality of outcomes is inimical to economic liberty and creates a very clear incentive system to be no better than average.
Rand captured the consequence of a society making everyone average to disincentivize achievement in one of her novels, Anthem. She should know. She grew up in Russia and saw first hand a society taken over by communists. She watched as her father's businesses, a pharmacy, was seized(or to use the more pleasant sounding term in use today, "nationalized") by the Bolsheviks. She then did her own version of going John Galt, by fleeing Russia to come to the United States. Her work and life reflect the fact that people respond to incentives. And although Atlas Shrugged involved a strike, even a much smaller individual response to incentives can have a very large cumulative effect.
Despite the fact that there actually are large numbers of poor people, one tsotha doesn't feel there "should be," and so he doesn't have to really grapple with the problem.
...who are either poor on their way to being comfortable or will stay poor as a result of their decisions. There's the difference between Marxists and regular people. Marxists believe in in static classes, which are an entirely mythical beast in the US.
And they "grappl[e] with the problem" with a great display of preening moral superiority by imposing "solutions" that create the very class structure they purport to despise.
Tsotha, you have not answered a question I have now posed twice to you (in different forms): how low a living standard is it acceptable to impose on the person who staffs Walmart for you, or the holder of the pipe welding job whose widespread accessibility you so boldly posit?
The question doesn't make any sense. Nobody is "imposing" living standards on anybody. Poverty is the natural condition of existence. If you didn't inherit a bunch of money (and most of us don't) all you have to do to be poor is not do anything.
As far as minimum living standard... a shared apartment with three squares and public transportation is the minimum as long as they have the opportunity to move up. People who work at WallMart can do that. Plumbers make a hell of a lot more money, so it's silly to even include them in the list.
Well I thought that some Ayn Rand fans would come to her defense, I could not bring myself to read all of the arguments against Rand, so allow me the same latitude that I allow those who have not read
"Atlas Shrugged". Yes it is a long book. To those who think that the Reagan Revolution was the embodiment of the ideals of Ayn Rand I would suggest a re-reading of the text of Atlas Shrugged. The issue is not marginal tax rates, the issue is freedom. Do you own your own life or not? Tax rates on businesses is the least of their problems from my point of view. Try to open a business and you will get a sense of the vast reach of government. Licenses, fees, permits, regulations are some examples of the barriers faced by business in this or any other reasonably modern country.
Income taxes represent an issue of justice. Do you own the results of your labor or not? If not, then at what point would any of you suggest the confiscation end? If the money you earn is not yours, why do you insist on letting the owner keep any of it. Take it all, and in doing that you will elevate need above ability. Need will be the only claim I would need to take money from those who have it. Argue all you want of selfish gits whining about an extra few thousand dollars in more taxes, it does not matter how little the amount is, it is an added obligation on those who have the money from those who don't have it. And when the government is given the power to levy taxes on income it is taking something under the threat of force., and that is theft. If it can be argued that all property is theft, then what can you call the forcible taking of something of value to you to only to give it to someone who needs it other than theft?
That is what is at issue here.
Do you own the results of your labor or not?
1) income is not the product of just your labor. There are lots of other things that determine it.
2) The Ayn Rand illusion is that "results" of your labor have an absolute value. They don't. The reward you get for your labor (how much you get paid) is extremely dependent on the society you live in. See example above about professional baseball player. With an income tax system, income is still generally proportional to effort, so you still get the results of your labor.
If not, then at what point would any of you suggest the confiscation end?
I've got a great idea to determine this confiscation rate you mention.
Let's have candidates to the head of government that advance their own specific proposals on the income tax. Then, each individual person, using a criterion of its own choice, votes for his favorite candidate. So, let's say that one candidate announced, before an election, an increase on the maximum income tax bracket from 35% to 39,6%. If a majority of people voted for this candidate, then we would implement this policy.
Hey, wait a minute. This sounds vaguely familiar...
So, let's say that one candidate announced, before an election, an increase on the maximum income tax bracket from 35% to 39,6%. If a majority of people voted for this candidate, then we would implement this policy.
Right. So people who don't pay any income tax vote to take more money from their neighbors. That sounds vaguely familiar too. Oh yes, it sounds a lot like Benjamin Franklin's description of democracy as being "...two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for dinner." That's why we had a republic until it was turned into a democracy over the last 150 years or so.
Right. So people who don't pay any income tax vote to take more money from their neighbors.
Well, if you think people make these decisions on pure self-interest, people who pay a high income tax can vote to lower the income tax rate. And, because these people have more money, they can make larger contributions to candidates and finance campaigns. They have a relatively large weight in an election already.
That sounds vaguely familiar too. Oh yes, it sounds a lot like Benjamin Franklin's description of democracy as being "...two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for dinner." That's why we had a republic until it was turned into a democracy over the last 150 years or so.
So, you're saying you're against a democratic system?
By the way, notice how in the example the wolves are the majority. You seem to subscribe to the Randian belief that a few enslaved geniuses are holding society together, and the rest of the people are freeloaders and bloodsuckers. But most people do work and pay income tax, you know? Check the brackets.
As I said before, the Atlas metaphor is exactly wrong. People with very high incomes can only exist in a society where there is a wide base consisting of large numbers of people who "consume" the fruits of their labor. They are not supporting anybody, they are being supported. Which is fine: after all, this support is voluntary and they do contribute with something of high value; the market wouldn't reward them if this was not the case (with some known exceptions, but this is beside the point). But let's not pretend that they are doing everything on their own while getting plundered by the Big Bad Looter.
So, you're saying you're against a democratic system?
Absolutely. Like the founders, I think democracy is a terrible idea and will inevitably lead to collapse as it has in every other instance throughout history. Does that answer the question?
By the way, notice how in the example the wolves are the majority. You seem to subscribe to the Randian belief that a few enslaved geniuses are holding society together, and the rest of the people are freeloaders and bloodsuckers. But most people do work and pay income tax, you know? Check the brackets.
I don't think the "enslaved genius" outliers matter that much in the overall picture. First of all because they can hire teams of lawyers to avoid taxes (like Jackie-O avoiding every last dime of inheritance tax through some sort of trust scam), and secondly they actually do have the resources to pick up and move to another country if things get too expensive. Raising taxes on these people is likely to be counterproductive. Nope, the people who pay the lion's share of the taxes are working professionals, not the genius types.
And I don't know where you're getting your numbers. My understanding is the number of people who are net beneficiaries from the government is greater than the number of people who are net payers. In this I include those with government jobs, because their financial interest in higher taxes outweighs their interest in lower taxes.
If Obama gets his way on EITC the net benefitters will heavily outnumber the payers.
People with very high incomes can only exist in a society where there is a wide base consisting of large numbers of people who "consume" the fruits of their labor. They are not supporting anybody, they are being supported.
No. Because people buy the "fruits" of my labor doesn't mean they're "supporting" me. That's a simple economic transaction that benefits both parties. But it's pretty clear who the "supporter" and "supportee" are when people use the power of the state to wrest money from my unwilling hands. That's not an economic transaction.
And I don't understand why you keep bringing up "people with very high income". A couple that makes $200,000 in NYC doesn't have a very high income, yet they'll be paying a hell of a lot in taxes.
To all those on this board who liken themselves to John Galt: Pick up a copy of "The Black Swan" by Nassim Nicholas Taleb. Read cover to cover. Take a deep breath. Realize that, rather than being "the most productive member of society", you were simply in the right place at the right time, and there are millions of others capable and waiting to take your place. You leaving the workforce has virtually no impact on the economy. It may even be a positive development.
This is the fatal flaw with Rand's ideal of going Galt; in a capitalist society that formets a never ending torrent of aspiring entrepreneurs/engineers/scientists, there is always an equal (or superior!) competitor who will seize the opportunity that the demise of an existing entity presents.
---Congratulations, ron, you big preening pussy. Hey, where's your small business at? I want to burn it down for fun.---
And this is why we have the second ammendment.
If I quit or cut back, will someone else take my job? Maybe. Socially worthless or not, I'm fairly hard to replace - believe me, if they could easily replace me with someone, say, from another line of business (or even the same business) or just out of school, they'd never have paid me a salary inflated enough to support an entire second family in the first place. My work, and the income I formerly injected back into the economy, won't be easily, or entirely, replaced.
Katheryn,
Quit. Observe. Record what happens. You will be replaced in a short time with someone who is either equally, or likely more competent. A general tenet: the more irreplaceable one considers oneself, the easier they actually are to replace. I have seen, more times that I can count, the "irreplaceable" talented specialist leave - just to have a more clever, agile, younger person come in and show that the "impossible" job really isn't so hard after all.
As to why it hasn't been done to you: companies work on inertia. If one does simply well enough to avoid getting fired or laid off, almost no company will look to the market for better talent to replace them, even if better talent is available. And age discrimination law suits help prevent it, too.
To all those on this board who liken themselves to John Galt: Pick up a copy of "The Black Swan" by Nassim Nicholas Taleb. Read cover to cover. Take a deep breath. Realize that, rather than being "the most productive member of society", you were simply in the right place at the right time, and there are millions of others capable and waiting to take your place. You leaving the workforce has virtually no impact on the economy. It may even be a positive development.
I see. So people that sacrificed to go to college, spent their 30s working 70 hour weeks to stay on the bleeding edge of law or technology could be replaced by someone who can't be bothered to graduate from high school or keep his fly closed long enough to get established before having children. Gotcha.
History is replete with examples of countries that ended up in the crapper because the productive people left or were shackled. Have you heard of the USSR? Zimbabwe?
---In AS all the people who ran those companies invented things, innovated, produced usable or at least salable products. A quaint if not wholly 19th century view of how big business is run today. Today the highest paid people don't have any relationship whatsoever to what the company does.---
What mastabatory musings. I give you Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Dave Thomas, Larry Ellison, Michael Dell, Sam Walton, Kirk Kerkorian all entrepreneurs that built from the ground up.
Megan said, "It's a pity she didn't quite get how human beings worked, especially herself."
Uh, Ms. Rand got it exactly right--EVERY human being is working for their own selfish interests. To pretend otherwise is to ignore human nature. An orderly, civilized society can only function when people treat each other fairly, trading value for equal value. That's it.
When other things intervene, like the government "mandating" that folks should do things that are NOT in their own best interests, then folks shouldn't be surprised when folks alter their behavior so they're still trying to take care of themselves first.
As an example, when government tries to tax folks more, they will find ways to avoid that tax and so keep more of the products of their own labor for themselves.
Of course, socialism does appeal to folks at the bottom (i.e., the "moochers") as they think they can gain something at the expense of those folks above them on the economic totem pole. You could even go so far as to say those folks at the bottom are acting in their own selfish interest!
And for those on the left who support abortion--what else is a woman who aborts her baby doing except acting in her own selfish interest, as she perceives it at that time?
Well, I'm also acting in my own selfish best interest, and I'm not going to let a bunch of idiots in Washington DC make me live a life under socialism. Many other folks feel the same way. It's really too bad the Obots have never read Atlas Shrugged or heeded its lessons, because they're acting just like the looters of the gov't in that novel!
--chicopanther
"Socialism is a suicide pact for a society. It really is that simple. Hugo Chavez' Venuzuela is beginning to have food shortages. Cuba is a dead society. The USSR is dead. Eastern Europe communist states are dead."
I note you exclude the more socilist elements of countries like Great Britain and France, care to explain why?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You're kidding right? You don't respond to the dead man walking economies, not to mention the secret police, the political prisons, the mass starvations?
Ok, I'll bite for France. France's socialism predisposed it to surrender to Muslims. They have entire suburbs of Paris that are no-go zones and when the youths feel like it they burn 700 cars per night. It will be Islamic in a matter of years. It tolerates anti-semitism and physical assaults on Jews. France's unemployment rate is between 7 and 10 percent in good times. Their vaunted safety net did not prevent the deaths of 15000 elderly people when a heat wave happened to come in August Their nationalized auto manufacturer is a joke and some people worry about the safety of Aerobus.
----The woman was one of the most appallingly evil thinkers of the 20th century. Jesus Christ, Atlas Shrugged is practically a paean to genocide. Why do people still listen to her?---
This is definitely the most ignorant, constricted, lunatic comment of the thread! Way to go!
I see. So people that sacrificed to go to college, spent their 30s working 70 hour weeks to stay on the bleeding edge of law or technology could be replaced by someone who can't be bothered to graduate from high school or keep his fly closed long enough to get established before having children. Gotcha.
Tsotha,
You make a common error of logic. You assume that all people who went to college and worked 70 hour weeks while delaying their family are eminently successful. This is patently untrue. There are many talented, reasonably accomplished people who have not achieved the peak of success that a top 0.1% income represents. Those who were not in the right place at the right time to find the perfect opportunity at the moment blessed by fate. Those who are hungry beyond belief, and still willing to do those things the complacent occupants of those spots (who seem to be well represented on this blog) are no longer are willing to.
Of course, people who "make it" are generally talented, hard working, intelligent, creative people. However, the common fallacy is for a person of such character to believe they have a monopoly on such character; to disregard the capability of others who hunger for their position, and who could do it equally as well.
---No government means no rules, which means that regular people get screwed while the people at the top make off with 99% of the country's wealth.---
What country are you in? When did we live with no rules? The country I'm in has in the last few years increasingly had police forces that are becoming militarized, stoplights with cameras, laws against selling used children's books, 10 page disclaimers on mortgage closing papers, gun-laws that disallow poor african american people from defending themselves, free speech inhibited before an election......
It is a lefty myth that Bush deregulated anything. It is one more thing that conservatives find fault with him for...
If spending under Mr. Bush was a disaster, regulation was even worse. The number of pages in the Federal Registry is a rough proxy for the swollen expanse of the regulatory state. In 2001, some 64,438 pages of regulations were added to it. In 2007, more than 78,000 new pages were added. Worse still, argues the Mercatus Center economist Veronique de Rugy, Mr. Bush is the unparalleled master of "economically significant regulations" that cost the economy more than $100 million a year. Since 2001, he jacked that number by more than 70%. Since June 2008 alone, he introduced more than 100 economically significant regulations.
http://volokh.com/posts/1232926639.shtml
And this banking meltdown is from Carter's CRA rule, and Clinton's enforcement of the rule. There is nothing more regulated than mortgages and banks, but to you its the Wild West. Nutz?!?!?!
----Democracy depends on a strong and contented (or at least hopeful) middle class, and middle classes are inventions of the government. They don't happen naturally.---
Thank you Karl Marx!!!!
Middle class capitalism and entrepeneurship are what happen when government gets out of the way.
As Ronald Reagan said: "Government is not the solution to the problem, Government is the problem".
---Try Haiti or Somalia. They have really low tax rates - much lower than those hellholes like Denmark and France and Norway and Spain. Right?---
They are actually the example par excellence of what socialism leads to. Thanks for thinking of them.
"This is the party that six years ago (to the month) was bullying anyone who questioned the Iraq War,"
Patrick,
Really? No s***? Show me the scars you got when the Bushstapo beat you with a riot baton and from when Dick Cheney hung you from a meat hook. Show me your Gitmo prisoner ID...or else shut the f*** up about "bullying."
"If only the people in her novels had acted remotely like actual people, rather than comic book characters..."
Indeed.
Don't suppose anyone wishes to recall the manner in which our Historic Leader was portrayed in the 'campaign.'
http://www.usatoday.com/life/books/news/2009-01-07-obama-spiderman-comic_N.htm
Immoralist, clearly you know nothing of business and the incentives and disincentives that are created by tax policies. You think that a nearly 40% tax rate is no big deal? Let me school you a bit with an example.
Lets say your business is in California. So you pay 40% to the Feds and another 10% to the state. That is 1/2 of your income GONE right there. Thrown in 8% sales tax, high property taxes, gasoline taxes, of course we will now have new taxes on energy and probably the resurgence of trade unions which will increase your labor costs.
It doesn't take long to realize that it is pointless to risk your hard earned capital and work 70 hour weeks for several years only to have to give a way the MAJORITY of your income. Especially considering the failure rate for new ventures is very high already. And of course there is always the possibility you will be sued out of business by frivolous litigation. Oh, and then you have those mountains of regulations to worry about. As most economic and employment growth comes from small business it is easy to see that Obama's policies will destroy productive activity.
So you see, someone doesn't have to go Galt completely to be harmful to growth. People with money will pull back and choose not to invest. Another misconception is there is no such thing as a tax "on the rich." Any new tax is shouldered by us all, as new costs are passed down the chain in the form of price increases, lower wages for workers, decreased employment opportunities and an overall reduction in economic activity.
---Is that how our economy works now? Did you take into account the value of the Wal-Mart worker's labor when you made the decision to shop there---
I say this with only mournfulness, but since you liberals took our once good educational system and flushed it down the toilette, the value of Walmart workers is equal to their pay. You all expound on the glories of education to meet the challenges we face, but you applaud the teachers unions as the turn out high drop out rates and significant illiteracy. Hopefully many Walmart workers (like many McDonald's workers) learn the values of working and seek improvement.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
McDonald's disputes the idea that its restaurant jobs have no prospects, noting that its CEO, Jim Skinner, started working at the company as a regular restaurant employee, and that 20 of its top 50 managers began work as regular crew members.[20] In 2007, the company launched an advertising campaign with the slogan "Would you like a career with that?" on Irish television, outlining that their jobs have many prospects.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's#Arguments_in_defense_of_McDonald.27s
I think that if one were to try to find out, to the penny, how much of your money went to taxes, you would need an eternity to calculate and know the true amount. Taxes, in all of its forms, is hardly a good thing for an economy, otherwise we would have had utopia here now in this America. The idea that we have something to show for all that we have spent is hardly the point. Taken to its extreme, if taxes are too low, if we are not paying enough to our various governmental agencies, the the solution is absurdly simple--take it all. Re-distribute, according to whatever formula you wish, all of the money taken, and see how well the economy does. If this sounds foolish and unworkable and disaterous then we have our answer. The only thing we are arguing about is the amount we will be charged for the government "services" that will lead us all to prosperity.
And again, DIDN'T YOU USED TO CALL YOURSELF JANE GALT?
And no one is more glad than I that she dropped that preposterously ill-fitting moniker.
Now if only Pamela Gellar would have a similar flash of introspective honesty and rename her cesspit of a blog...
Ditto for society, or haven't you played Bioshock?
Oh yeah, a video game by someone who isn't Ayn Rand. Now there's an authoritative source. What video game do you use when examining Hegel? Super Mario Brothers?
Perhaps predictibly, Ayn Rand is making a comeback on the right...
Perhaps predictably because Marxisants are staging a comeback on the left.
--This is the fatal flaw with Rand's ideal of going Galt; in a capitalist society that formets a never ending torrent of aspiring entrepreneurs/engineers/scientists, there is always an equal (or superior!) competitor who will seize the opportunity that the demise of an existing entity presents.--
Of course, in the real world when tax rates were reduced under Reagan, productivity went up - because people responded to the tax incentives. They had been John Galting under the higher taxes.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1120&full=1
I know you have this attitude that all people care about is money, but did you ever stop and think that perhaps some of those people *don't mind* paying more of their income to make sure everyone has healthcare?
A willing beast of burden is still a beast of burden.
The woman was one of the most appallingly evil thinkers of the 20th century. Jesus Christ, Atlas Shrugged is practically a paean to genocide. Why do people still listen to her?
Funny you should mention Jesus Christ. Are you familiar with pre-Enlightenment European history? You know, that millenia and a half plus spent under Christian rule?
Jack - In that case, you're a moron and the point went thataway. Megan's shockingly sensible (to me) point was that Atlas Shrugged described the motivations and behavior of characters that does not represent how actual human beings are.
Well Bosch the Poodle, check the mirror out and recoil in horror at what you have projected onto another.
That "shockingly sensible" point ignores the fact that Ayn Rand did not intend to show "people as they are"; she intended to show people as reduced to the essential of their animating principles, in order to dramatize the end-of-road of those principles.
The criticism that "Atlas" doesn't show people as they are, thusly is a complete miss of the point of the book.
Back to Romantic Literature 101 for both of you putzes.
"I know you have this attitude that all people care about is money, but did you ever stop and think that perhaps some of those people *don't mind* paying more of their income to make sure everyone has healthcare?"
I have never met one of those people and I know people of every political stripe. If we were truly going with "pay as you go" we would all be at a 90% tax rate. The only reason that people claim to want to subsidize others is they have yet to be truly taxed at the rates necessary to pay for it all due to deficit spending and incessant borrowing by the government.
I think if some people want to pay for the health care of others, nothing is stopping them from doing so. The 2% of people that would do this will tire of it quickly though I bet. Feel free to seek out those in your community who lack health insurance and offer to pick up the tab! We are already taxed to death and trillions are being spent on entitlements now, there has to be some limits or fiscal collapse will be around the corner.
OK, I realize that whatever is said here will not convince the devotees of the Lightbringer that he can be wrong. But let me add a couple of points anyway.
First, I am a recently retired Peace Officer in a small mountain county of Colorado. I personally know of 3 small business owners here who, having run the numbers, decided finally on the morning of November 5 to close their businesses . The announced tax increases, the obvious implication amounting to a serious threat of more and larger increases to follow, and the known nature of the collection of fools, miscreants, maladroits, and as yet unindicted co-conspirators that makes up our Congress made a reasonable projection of what was to come easy.
Among many things that Leftist economic theorists ignore when trying to simplify the model for the nation's economy so they can conceive it are first, that most jobs in this country are not created by large corporations, but by what can be considered small businesses. Second, almost all small businesses are organized as what are, I believe, called "Sub-chapter S" Corporations. The income of the corporation is imputed to the business owner personally, at the gross level. Damn near any small business running over a year is going to have a gross income in 6 figures. The mythical $250K lower level for tax increases includes most small businesses. And in fact, we know from the campaign, that by the last days Obama's spokesmen were admitting that the tax increases would have to come down to the $75K level. Knowing that their taxes were going up, big time, knowing that Congress was going to insert Federal government regulation into everything, and admittedly knowing that our new all Democrat state legislature with a Democratic governor was chomping at the bit to remove all of our statutory limitations on taxation and spending [which they have just done this session of the legislature, and taxes and fees are going up big time] it was reasonable to assume that things were going to become untenable.
Note that factor. State and local taxes are rising rapidly too; especially in areas controlled by Democrats. The tax and administrative burden is cumulative. At a certain point, which varies by person, it is just no longer worth it anymore. Smart Kulaks get out of the way before it is too late.
They were faced with a choice of cashing out their business now and having something left, or slowly going bankrupt under the new regime. They have cashed out. They were small businesses. The three of them had maybe 18 employees. All of them were laid off.
I rather doubt that all the employees have jobs again, because our county has the highest unemployment rate in the state. [No, not because of those three companies alone.] Now, at the time they shut down, the companies were still in business, and operating. They had gone through and survived the fuel shock of this summer, and looked to be able to keep on. They have not been replaced here in the county. The owners did the smart thing, as businessmen. They projected the future as best they could and reacted appropriately. The stock market is doing the same kind of thing right now.
Since I am retired, and because there is no real chance of getting another job here, my own "Galting" is going to be minimal. But in an effort to bring the new system down as fast as possible, I will probably try to get on every government benefit I can. If the economy collapses quickly, there may be a chance of bringing it back again someday.
As I said, words will not convince the true believers. I'm pretty sure that events will not convince them either, as faith is beyond reason. But I do know that we will see what is to happen very soon. I do not expect that the events are going to be pleasant or end well.
I will offer one set of predictions. The stock market is not anywhere near the bottom. And in April when the first quarter statements for various 401K's, etc. arrive; there are going to be a whole lot of people who are unhappy with the Lightbringer and his supporters.
Subotai Bahadur
The most obvious example being that Rand is clearly sympathetic to Roark and regards everyone else as foold for not appreciating his unique designs, which completely ignores the basic principle that, if you want to sell something, you need to design it such that the buyer likes it.
It's funny how Rand critics like to think they've "discovered" some sort of flaw in her works, when in fact there is often a line in her work that specifically blows away their "insight".
In this case:
"I don't intent to build in order to have clients. I intend to have clients in order to build."
Roark knew full well he wasn't going to be the busiest architect. He didn't want to be; he was perfectly willing to work in a quarry if that was all there was for him.
We tried it the Ayn Rand way from the early 80's on, and it's been discredited.
You clearly know nothing about "the Ayn Rand way", and thusly you're the one who's been discredited.
Democracy depends on a strong and contented (or at least hopeful) middle class, and middle classes are inventions of the government. They don't happen naturally.
America is not a democracy, it is a constitutional republic. The substitution of "democracy" from freedom was brought about by the Left via Herbert Croly and his ilk, one of the first steps in the Left's process of co-opting American liberalism.
The middle class arose naturally and organically in America, as a result of the freedom and economic prosperity brought about by this republic. They were not "engineered".
Engineered societies are not free ones.
You might want to clean up the bits of your own exploded brain.
who is george bush: Of all the amazing things I've seen in American public life in my 55+ years, the most amazing is how quickly and completely Republicans have forgotten they were in power for eight years.
In power? GW Bush had a Republican Congress for only five of those eight years. Bill Clinton in complete power before Bush, had a Democratic Congress for two years. Both Reagan and GHWBush also in power, had no Republican Congresses. What is amazing is not how quickly one forgets, it is how partisan one can be when attributing blame.
"Doc, I think my leg's broke."
"Damn (opposition party) broke it, didn't they. Let's lynch 'em."
"Ummm, say Doc, that isn't going to help my leg, is it."
I find it amazing that America and others failed to learn from the unregulated American capitalism of the 19th century, with its wild booms and busts and great monopolies, oligarchies and trusts.
I find it amazing that anyone thinks that the volatility of those years was due to anything other than the shallowness of the capital pool.
Ayn Rand's objectivist movement died when she and one of her followers announced to their respective spouses that they would have an affair because they were intellectually superior and it was natural for them to fall in love. (from N. Brandon's book)
You must be trapped in 1988.
I was not aware that a movement's numbers *increased* after its death.
You rand-o-maniacs do realize, don't you, that ol' Rearden favored paying laborers what they were worth. He had a respect for work and he would consider it beneath himself not to recognize the value of another's effort by paying him fairly for it.
We realize that. Do you?
Is that how our economy works now?
No. But then, nobody but illiterates are claiming that we are in a "Randian" economy now.
Call me when that day arrives. Until then, if you want to avoid social unrest, you are going to have to suffer the heavy heavy yoke of paying taxes so we can pay the policemen while we wait for you and your fellow citizens to start volunteering to do so.
Translation: freedom is impossible, your only choices are servitude or anarchy.
1776 never happened.
Right.
Soemtimes I think the bottom line is Conservatives and Libertarians simply don't recognize how much luck is invloved in determining who is rich and who is poor.
The bottom line is how afraid Leftists are of the moral responsibility for who they are.
People in the US aren't confiscating part of your paycheck. They are asking you to pay for the value you receive from being permitted to work in a society that was built by many people other than you, and continues to operate with the consent of many people other than you.
"Papers please."
Luck? Everyone I know to a man who has made a good living for themselves worked their ass off to get where they are. Conversely, MOST people I know who are *not* prosperous are victims of their own poor decisions and behavior.
A safety net is needed but we have gone far beyond that. Human nature dictates that people learn through facing the consequences of their bad decisions. We will NEVER eliminate all suffering, anyone who thinks that can be accomplished is spouting Utopian nonsense.
I was on my ass financially in my younger days and I would have qualified for any number of government aid programs. I chose to dig myself out the hole I was in with hard work instead (even though welfare would have been more money) and I am much better off for it.
Has the government started sending out bills for the value of the accumulated intangible assets that have allowed you to live a non-Sudanian life?
Yes, those are called 1040 forms.
It would be interesting if the people could send *them* the bill for all the unseen innovations and enterprises that might have been done with all that confiscated wealth.
Others will advance instead of them. And, sadly, their form of protest will probably never get noticed.
Well that's the thing.... you cannot know who a stillborn child might have been... and you won't know what you've lost, anymore than you can know what has *already been lost* over the last hundred-plus years of government encroachment.
The costs of government consumption of wealth in terms of what *might have been*, is by nature unseen.
Rand was a brilliant thinker and iconoclast whose biggest mistake was assuming that most humans are capable of rational, reality-based, thinking. This mess was created by the "best and the brightest" that our culture has to offer.
She *knew* that every human being is *capable* of rational, reality-based thinking. She did not harbor any delusions about the fact that most people don't do that -- but she understood that this was due entirely to cultural factors, not innate ones (which is what makes hash of the BS claim that AR didn't understand human nature).
But I am definitely not in favor of a Randian, noble selfishness, "That's not my problem" approach to the problem, which, besides being heartless, will predictably rise homelessness, misery and crime.
It would if people enacted your conception of Randian selfishness, sure. It's a good thing that you don't know what you are talking about then, eh?
Rand said that an individual's right to choose whether to help or not, is morally prior to any alleged "obligation" thereof. Her moral code does not declare charity, benevolence etc. as immoral; she merely repudiates the idea that we are **obligated** to do those things, and that this obligation transcends our right to say "no".
That "duty" component is what takes the potentially wonderful fact of human generosity and turns it into that poison she rightfully condemned as "altruism".
What Rand got wrong, of course, was that the businessmen she lionized have in real life been a big part of the problem. The crooked politicans for the most part were being bribed by crooked CEO's.
Economic actions are more often driven by our limbic system than by our frontal cortex.
Speak for yourself, buster.
Of all the amazing things I've seen in American public life in my 55+ years, the most amazing is how quickly and completely Republicans have forgotten they were in power for eight years.
I'm pretty sure it was not Ronald Reagan and Milton Friedman.
What Rand got wrong, of course, was that the businessmen she lionized have in real life been a big part of the problem. The crooked politicans for the most part were being bribed by crooked CEO's.
And the fact that those politicians had all that power with which to attract those bribes, is an absolute not to be questioned.
Right.
Fact: politicians in a properly contrained government lack the power to screw things up as only a government can do. They got nothing to sell, they don't get the business.
I don't understand how the GOP would feel any special connection with Rand. This is the party that six years ago (to the month) was bullying anyone who questioned the Iraq War
Right, I rememember the gangs of Bush Youth rampaging through the neighborhood beating up anyone who refused to say "Seig Bush".
She *knew* that every human being is *capable* of rational, reality-based thinking. She did not harbor any delusions about the fact that most people don't do that -- but she understood that this was due entirely to cultural factors, not innate ones (which is what makes hash of the BS claim that AR didn't understand human nature).
If she understood that then she must have understood the role that tradition played in maintaining non-destructive human behavior. But don't think she ever did understand that.
And the fact that those politicians had all that power with which to attract those bribes, is an absolute not to be questioned.
The businessmen supported them getting that power. Hell, American businssmen supported Barack Obama. They supported his "stimulus bill". Stop pretending they are victims of the politicians. They have the politicians in their pocket.
The reaon Tom Daschle failed to get his appointment was because some businessman was keeping him as a pet.
It would if people enacted your conception of Randian selfishness, sure. It's a good thing that you don't know what you are talking about then, eh?
Rand said that an individual's right to choose whether to help or not, is morally prior to any alleged "obligation" thereof. Her moral code does not declare charity, benevolence etc. as immoral; she merely repudiates the idea that we are **obligated** to do those things, and that this obligation transcends our right to say "no".
That "duty" component is what takes the potentially wonderful fact of human generosity and turns it into that poison she rightfully condemned as "altruism".
Oh, please. Saarek, what are you, 12 years old? I hope you are, so there's room for progress.
First of all, I was discussing the income tax in my post, not voluntary donations. It's quite alright to quote only part of my post, but next time make sure you read and understand the rest of it. As for me not knowing what I am talking about, get this through your thick skull: it is not hard to understand Rand's concept of rational self-interest. Pretty much all people here do.
The voluntary charity argument from Randoids is pretty absurd, and it relies on ignorance of various phenomena of real societies, such as the abundant, unavoidable instances of social dilemmas. Go look it up.
There is something very ironic about die-hard Objectivism defenders like Seerak. Rand presents in "Atlas Shrugged" a fantasy world of enslaved geniuses who are holding society together. Yet, people who actually defend her are sad delusional egomaniacs whose self-esteem depends on the desperate belief that people who don't agree with them "just don't get it". Going Galt? You're not John Galt, Saarek. You're Dwight Schrute.
What the gist of the leftist snark posted here is fear; fear that the net tax payer class will quietly rebel. And then who will pick up the slack for the parasites?
All of the nonsense as if the government is so kind to allow you to succeed. To allow you the money that you worked for. How mighty white of them to let you keep some of your money. Doing you all manner of favors with your money.
There will be a capital strike in this country, and a lot sooner than most of these communists posting here think. Its not going John Gault in the literal sense, many will simply choose to earn a bit less and no to the lefties commenting here there really won't be many to fill the slot. Those who are able, capable and potentially willing are also capable of understanding why those who pulled back did so and will probably do the same. The extra effort doesn't result in a meaningful enough gain. Beyond that what will happen is tax evasion and avoidance on a vastly larger scale. Like the Europeans do. Cash only transactions and bartering for services. Then just like Europeans and others, massive capital flight. Americans forget that until not so long ago the US was the capital and tax haven for most of the world. The US did not disclose interest income to foreign tax ministries of their nationals US accounts. Nor did the US disclose the amounts of their wealth in the US.
Soon if not already taking place is the outflows of American capital to foreign safe havens. The Swiss made their deal with the US over UBS; but that was the last one, from now on they will take all of the funds with a vengeance and no disclosures and the funds will indeed come to them. And there is nothing the government can do to stop it. It is too much money and too many players for the government to stop it even if it could and it can't. Not enough manpower and not enough talent to do the job.
Then there is the capital that Americans will generate overseas that will never reach our shores. Earned abroad and it will stay abroad and there is nothing the government can do about either.
With this gang of communists running the country the willingness of Americans to buy government bonds will greatly diminish and so will that of foreigners. Tax collections will plummet, debt financing will be unsustainable and parasite state will finally tax the parasites just like good old Europe; high VAT taxes. How progressive, a 22% or higher VAT tax on virtually all goods sold. The parasites will have to actually pay something coming withing five miles of their share of the tax burden. Just remember the story of the Dart family, when facing paying about five billion in inheritance and estate taxes, they moved their money out of the country and a number of then renounced their citizenship. People are funny that way about their money, they don't tolerate getting robbed. The rich democrats thought they were Geithners, taxes are for other people, not them. I have been speaking to a number of those democrats and now that it is dawning on them that they are going to get the shaft they may not become republicans but they sure as hell are not going to vote democrat in the next election or 2012 and they sure as hell are not going to contributing money to them either. Not even 90 days of the Obamunist and they already have a severe case of buyers remorse.
Two years from now few will ever even admit to have voted for him. If the communist party in charge of the congress and the executive keep on the present trajectory, four years from now they will become an endangered species and the republicans if they actually awake from their coma will become the dominant party for another generation.
Actually, Rand's books were chocked full of crooked businessmen and politicians.
I enjoyed Rand's books. They were a welcome counterpoint to the general mush of socialist claptrap. As far as Objectivism or Socialism or any other -ism, I'm with Ferris Bueller, "-Ism's in my opinion are not good."
The reality is, though, that disincentives to profit are not generally beneficial to productivity. And, spending money you don't have in pursuit of non-productivity enhancing goals is emphatically not what we need at this time when the baby boomers are getting ready to retire en masse, and we are going to need to produce the same amount of goods and services to support the same population with a far smaller pool of workers.
It is a recipe for stagflation. We have been down this road before, though you young ones no doubt have no memory of the pain we endured in the 1970's trying to do exactly the same thing.
Well, you can tell by the way I use my walk,
I'm a woman's man: no time to talk.
Music loud and women warm, I've been kicked around
since I was born.
And now it's all right. It's OK.
And you may look the other way.
We can try to understand
the New York Time's effect on man.
Whether you're a brother or whether you're a mother,
you're stayin' alive, stayin' alive.
Feel the city breakin' and everybody shakin',
and we're stayin' alive, stayin' alive.
Ah, ha, ha, ha, stayin' alive, stayin' alive.
Ah, ha, ha, ha, stayin' alive.
And, don't anybody give me any crap about "but, but, Bush's deficits!" I've heard that one to the point it makes me retch. Obama is on a track to loading us in 5 years with double the debt Bush racked up in 8. When the Chinese broaden their markets to the point they no longer feel they have to prop us up, there is going to be hell to pay, and nobody is going to loan us the money to pay it.
tsotha said
Absolutely. Like the founders, I think democracy is a terrible idea and will inevitably lead to collapse as it has in every other instance throughout history. Does that answer the question?
You're certainly honest, I'll give you that. While I completely disagree, I like the fact that you are willing to openly discuss such a sacred cow. I would enjoy discussing it too, but I'm afraid this would turn into the never-ending thread.
I don't know where you're getting your numbers. My understanding is the number of people who are net beneficiaries from the government is greater than the number of people who are net payers... If Obama gets his way on EITC the net benefitters will heavily outnumber the payers.
Empirically, that's not true at all. The vast majority of Americans are net contributors to the state. They do differ wildly in their individual contributions. Perhaps this was what you meant?
In this I include those with government jobs, because their financial interest in higher taxes outweighs their interest in lower taxes.
Well, people with government jobs are net beneficiaries of the government by definition. But I don't see how would they be more interested in higher taxes, except the if taxes benefit them individually (e.g., to raise their salaries). A school teacher or a policeman is as interested in paying less taxes as the rest of us.
And I don't understand why you keep bringing up "people with very high income". A couple that makes $200,000 in NYC doesn't have a very high income, yet they'll be paying a hell of a lot in taxes.
The Obama's upper income bracket wil start at $250,000. See here http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/26/us/politics/26budget.html?ref=us
But a couple that earns 250,000 will not be paying a hell of a lot of taxes. Actually, It will not pay one cent more in taxes. Remember, the bracket falls on marginal income.
So, take a couple that earns $270,000. The new bracket, which is 3.6% more than under Bush (and the same as under Clinton), will fall on the marginal income: 270,000-250,000=$20,000.
So this couple will pay an additional
0.036*20,000= $720 a year, or $60 per month. Actually, a little less, because some of the lower income brackets will go down.
History is replete with examples of countries that ended up in the crapper because the productive people left or were shackled. Have you heard of the USSR? Zimbabwe?
Nobody is defending the economic systems of these countries, in which free markets have been completely destroyed, with a consequent loss of a self-regulated pricing system and incentives to work. This doesn't happen with an income tax 40%, 50% or 60%. Take Sweden, which has an upper income bracket of 56%, and is doing fine. The same goes for the rest of the Scandinavian countries.
(sigh)
cubanbob, if you had some balls you would "go Galt" in the original sense. Put your money where your mouth is, and remove yourself form the economy. As you don't, do as you like, but please, spare us the paranoid manifesto.
You're missing the wider meaning of Galt. It means that when the socialists take control to bleed the rich capitalists, the money will have already vanished in anticipation of the event. It's wealth destruction in anticipation of redistribution.
Sounds like a fairly accurate description of what's been happening over the past few months.
But, Sweden's tax rates have been trending down, and I understand their corporate tax rates are far lower than our's. Why are we pursuing a course they are rejecting? As for other Scandinavian countries, Norway is the Saudi Arabia of Northern Europe with its North Sea oil income, so you really can't make valid apples to apples comparisons there.
But, Sweden's tax rates have been trending down, and I understand their corporate tax rates are far lower than our's. Why are we pursuing a course they are rejecting? As for other Scandinavian countries, Norway is the Saudi Arabia of Northern Europe with its North Sea oil income, so you really can't make valid apples to apples comparisons there.
Good point, Bart. For completeness, there is also Finland, who doesn't have oil revenues, has a 60% income tax, and has a quality of life comparable to Sweden and Norway.
Sure, Sweden made recent adjustments, and the corporate tax is low. I'm not being an ideologue here. Cutting income or corporate taxes may be perfectly fine. I actually think there are good arguments in favor of cutting the corporate tax. All I'm saying is these things should be discussed on the foreseeable impact in the economy. Whatever works best for the specific situation. Right now, taxes are being cut on the lower brackets, and these cuts are arguably the most effective in fighting rising unemployment (which is concentrated on unskilled, low-paying jobs), and plummeting demand.
These things are very arguable. What I find annoying is some wackos suddenly getting all indignant about a 3.6% raise on the upper income bracket, as if they discovered just now that the U.S is a country that, like all developed countries, has a progressive income tax; and, of all the places they could look, they find inspiration for a protest in... Atlas Shrugged?? You couldn't make this stuff up.
I mean, one would hope that self-awareness would have kicked in by now.
The whole family is reading (or listening to audio versions of) "Atlas Shrugged" right now. We're gobsmacked at how contemporary it is.
Folks who think America is nothing special, that the democracy and capitalism that are the engines of our success in the world are accidental, don't mean anything, can be done without, are fooling themselves and have no concept of history. I'm no economics expert but it's amazing to me how many people love to reveal their utter and complete economics ignorance in public for the world to see. If you punish people for doing something, they stop doing it or they do less of it. Obama is punishing hard work and achievement. This is antithetical to the American Idea.
There is nothing unique about Americans' DNA. We're no different or more special than any other people in the world. The difference is purely the IDEA of America. A lot of people here do not know what that is and could not articulate it if you pointed a gun at their heads. Read about the Founders, what they wrote, what they did, what they suffered for their cause of founding this country. Read the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Read about what the concept of this country was and is. Then tell the rest of us that what this Marxist fool in the WH is doing is not purely designed to destroy ALL of that.
Dan, tsotha and others here are exactly correct. It is not the poor and downtrodden that make this country great; it is the entrepreneurs and risk-takers that do. Without them, we ARE no better than Zimbabwe. All of history is replete with examples of abject poverty, misery, tyrants and dictators. America stands as one of the very few beacons in the dark and the current political crop are determined to destroy this. The planned heavy taxes and penalties on work, investment, invention, creation, etc. are going to kill it. They are already killing the stock market. People who are not part of what makes this country great refuse to see what is in front of their faces.
Companies are laying people off, freezing hiring, cutting back hours and pay, and going out of business. What part of trickle down economics do you not understand? A rising tide lifts all boats. Our tide is vanishing before our eyes.
Where I work, Surgeons are starting to retire in their early 60's, between malpractice insurance, taxes, hassles, it is no longer worth it. Some are considering rejecting medicare patients as the reimbursement from Uncle Sam is too low to be worth it.
Now people think Surgeons are 'rich', and they are well paid, but what is wrong with being well paid in return for having talent, saving and improving lives, and having to go through over 10 years of training before you start to earn a living?
Megan,
Your view of Atlas Shrugged really seems to have been formed by your college professors and by the drive-by media.
Any serious reader of Atlas knows that Ayn Rand presents a whole spectrum of very believable, realistic characters who mirror some aspect of reality. That's precisely one of the reasons that the book seems so prophetic to so many people right now. It's not just that Rand write about "events" that are proving true in reality, but it's also that the people trying to run the economy right now are straight out of Atlas as well. Barney Frank and Claude Raines, for instance, are figures straight out of Atlas.
Of course, in the real world when tax rates were reduced under Reagan, productivity went up - because people responded to the tax incentives. They had been John Galting under the higher taxes.
Red,
The Cato paper you sight offers the classic fallacy of integrating results over a time period while ignoring the trends at the end of the time period (as well as ignoring conflicting conclusions from other relevant periods.) Let's follow the history; to be generous, I'll even use Cato's flawed assumptions to track the general effect of marginal tax rate on economic well-being:
1980: 70%, large recession
1982: 50%, Economic success returns
1987: 38.5% Begins a downward trend with the stock market collapse
1988: 28% economic slowdown continues at an increasing pace
1990: 28% Full blown recession
1991: 31% economy begins recovery
1993: 39.6% economic success returns, all be it not as strong as in 1982-1987
2002: 38.6% short, mild recession
2003: 35% begins the expansion and subsequent collapse of the economy which we are currently experiencing.
Based on that record, it appears the strongest growth in the period occurred with 50% top marginal tax rates. Cutting to 38.5% then 28% coincided with economic turmoil ending in recession. Did all the John Galts magically come back and screw everything up?
If you follow this logic, then the conclusion would appear to be that a 50% income tax rate was co-incident with the strongest economic period; 70% was too high, and 38.5% is too low. We are now at 35%, ergo raising taxes back to 50% is the answer.
Of course, this completely ignores the large period of success from 1946 - 1963 which had 90+% max marginal income tax rates.
At the beginning I said the Cato assumptions were flawed. This is fundamentally because the Cato observations are simply correlation without causation. Overlay any economic indicator with economic performance and you can draw a (probably erroneous) conclusion based on correlation, not causation. This is called a narrative fallacy, of which Cato and most other ideologically oriented think tanks are routinely guilty.
Those of us who live in the real world, untainted by the need to pick and choose statistics which support a narrow and overly simplified world view, realize that marginal income tax rate is a third or fourth order effect on the economy and, outside the extreme of 70%+ rates has very little to do with how the economy performs.
The Galt theory *might* make sense in a world with 90%+ marginal revenues on a significant portion of the population (as was the case in 1957 when the book was written.) In today's discussion of 35% vs. 39%, it is completely farcical.
" (sigh)
cubanbob, if you had some balls you would "go Galt" in the original sense. Put your money where your mouth is, and remove yourself form the economy. As you don't, do as you like, but please, spare us the paranoid manifesto.
Posted by Daniel Ferreira | March 7, 2009 5:31 AM"
I actually am doing just that. Shifting my business overseas and with it my income. Regrettably of my one hundred employees, I will need to let go sixty five of the. My income will remain the same, perhaps even increase except it will be out of the Obama the communist tax collector hands. And like me there are tens of thousands of business people like me who will do the same. And perfectly legal. Its absurd that China, a communist country actually has a lower tax rate than the US.
Daniel Ferreira perhaps you can give my soon to be ex employees a job and you can pay the taxes I will be deferring until this country wakes up and tosses the communist trash out the door. Put your money (if you actually have any) where your money is.
I actually am doing just that. Shifting my business overseas and with it my income. Regrettably of my one hundred employees, I will need to let go sixty five of the. My income will remain the same, perhaps even increase except it will be out of the Obama the communist tax collector hands. And like me there are tens of thousands of business people like me who will do the same. And perfectly legal. Its absurd that China, a communist country actually has a lower tax rate than the US.
Sure, cubanbob. In your next story, come up with a number that is a little less perfect than 100. Make sure to make your "business" a little less abstract, too.
Now, if all that were true, that wouldn't be going Galt. That would be going hypocrite. Evading your country's taxes, while reaping all the benefits of living in the U.S.A. with governmente services paid for with other people's money? At least Galt wasn't a freeloader.
Times Current | March 7, 2009 11:33 AM
What you overlook is not the nominal rate but rather the effective rate. That is determined by the allowable deductions and exemptions. Factor those back in to your example and your premise falls apart. If tax rates mean nothing then why are the high tax rates losing population (of those who actually pay taxes)? Nordic countries are usually upheld as successful examples of counties with high tax rates and high standards of living. Of course its not quite as rosy a picture as it is painted. First while collectively voting left, the amount of tax evasion in those countries is rather high. Bartering for services is one way its done. Working off the books while getting welfare benefits is another. Finally what is overlooked is the most obvious of all, they are small countries that up to now have had a homogeneous population and access to large export markets. It is the underlying capitalist export engine that enabled these countries to have the tax revenues to fund their welfare state. The US even if it tried to emulate the export base of these countries and use the tax revenues generated by the exports to fund the welfare state could not do it. The world economy simply is not large enough to absorb the levels of goods and services the US would have to export to be at a comparable level to these Nordic countries. As an aside, Norway is only rich because of oil. Prior to the North Sea oil boom, it was rather poor.
Read the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Read about what the concept of this country was and is. Then tell the rest of us that what this Marxist fool in the WH is doing is not purely designed to destroy ALL of that.
Peg C, I won;t argue about Obama being a Marxist tool, but you're kidding yourself if you think Rand is the antidote. The people who put Obama in the WH were the latter day John Galts, the captains of capitalism, people like Soros.
" I actually am doing just that. Shifting my business overseas and with it my income. Regrettably of my one hundred employees, I will need to let go sixty five of the. My income will remain the same, perhaps even increase except it will be out of the Obama the communist tax collector hands. And like me there are tens of thousands of business people like me who will do the same. And perfectly legal. Its absurd that China, a communist country actually has a lower tax rate than the US.
Sure, cubanbob. In your next story, come up with a number that is a little less perfect than 100. Make sure to make your "business" a little less abstract, too.
Now, if all that were true, that wouldn't be going Galt. That would be going hypocrite. Evading your country's taxes, while reaping all the benefits of living in the U.S.A. with governmente services paid for with other people's money? At least Galt wasn't a freeloader.
Posted by Daniel Ferreira | March 7, 2009 4:21 PM"
Like I said, avoidance which is perfectly legal. And even with all of that I will still be paying every quarter more than you will pay in ten years. 2% pay the bulk of the income taxes in this county. You along with the other 98% are the freeloaders. Put your money where your mouth is and pay the top rate with no deductions. The government accepts contributions. I get the same benefits you do, actually less since I don't qualify for any of the welfare programs like you probably do. So why should I pay more than you? Instead we ought to have progressive voting, the more you pay the more your votes counts. Tax weighted voting. My money is just that, mine, not yours and not belonging to the parasite class. Earn your keep and support yourself on your dime, not mine.
But even for the sake of argument I was engaging in tax evasion, there is nothing you can do about it nor can the government. So your back to the conundrum of soon to be compelled to pay for your welfare state instead of being able to jam someone else the cost of your benefits. Pony up and put your money if you have any where your mouth is. If not start working a second or third job and be the good little slave you demand others be.
Actually, Rand's books were chocked full of crooked businessmen and politicians.
Which makes it all the more odd to me that the Rand followers insist on placing businessmen on a pedestal.
But it shows the fundamental flaw in her thinking which has been alluded to. If the vast majority of people (businessmen, politicians, the masses) are ignorant and/or malignant, what hope is there for the her noble few? In her own books, no hope at all. Which leaves you wondering how any sort of human progress ever happened at all.
The truth is that the basic premise of Rand and modern libertarianism is false. It is not the case that a tiny handful of noble "producers" have carried the rest of the undeserving human race on their long-suffering backs.
2% pay the bulk of the income taxes in this county.
Yes, and that 2% are downright communist in their politics, which is why I don't believe a word you're saying.
' Read the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Read about what the concept of this country was and is. Then tell the rest of us that what this Marxist fool in the WH is doing is not purely designed to destroy ALL of that.
Peg C, I won;t argue about Obama being a Marxist tool, but you're kidding yourself if you think Rand is the antidote. The people who put Obama in the WH were the latter day John Galts, the captains of capitalism, people like Soros.
Posted by SteveM | March 7, 2009 4:40 PM"
No SteveM. I know a number of those people. They were thinking that were Tim Geithner, that they would not get hit with the taxes. You would be surprised just how many of them, even rabid Bush haters are starting to realize Obama is an honest man in one sense. He meant what he said and is doing precisely what he said he would do. They just thought it was all campaign rhetoric, that he really wasn't serious about what he promised. They won't make that mistake again.
If the effects were not so devastating to the country, I would have enjoyed immensely the royal screwing they are getting. They won't be voting hard left ever again. An they won't ever finance the hard left campaigns either. The democrats have jumped the shark with Obama,Pelosi and Reid. Unless they change drastically the democrat party as it currently stands will be effectively dead in two years after the next election.
Soros is a different sort of son of a bitch: the Marxist capitalist. Besides apparently being a true believer he is also a superb speculator and short seller and that is exactly what he is doing, shorting the USA to make a killing.But then again, the communist elite never had a problem with wealth and luxury as long as its for the senior party members. The vanguard of the proletariat. They deserve the capitalist finery and luxuries for all of the work they do for the peasants and workers. France has warrant out for his arrest for market manipulation. What are the odds the democrats will extradite him to France to face trial?
If not start working a second or third job and be the good little slave you demand others be.
I'm very happy with my job, thank you very much. Who's demanding anything from you? Plenty of third-world countries with very low taxes. If you don't like it here, do everybody else a favor and go. Aren't you suppose to leave and watch the U.S. fall apart without the likes of you or something? Or the part of you that has a faint contact with reality keeps telling you that no one would even notice?
Instead we ought to have progressive voting, the more you pay the more your votes counts. Tax weighted voting.
Beautiful. Now we're getting some honesty from the Randoid maniacs. So, no democracy. What else, cubanbob?
Like I said, avoidance which is perfectly legal. And even with all of that I will still be paying every quarter more than you will pay in ten years.
You're trying too hard, buddy. You and your "business", that you are "shifting overseas" are a pretty pathetic bluff. The question is: do you even work for a living?
Finland also has (or had, last time I checked) the highest suicide rate in the world.
Sure, because the lower brackets employ so many people. Neo-Revisionist-Keynesian bilge.
You are overlooking the enabling characteristics of the crooked polititians, without whom the parasitic business leaders would not be able to flourish and, temporarily, prosper.
Posted by Daniel Ferreira | March 7, 2009 5:40 PM
You are just huffing and puffing and praying I'm bluffing. I am not and frankly what you believe or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is that I am a representative of what is staring to happen. And there is nothing you can do about it. And since you are not demanding anything of me why do you have a problem with my lowering the theft of my property to support parasites like you?
Like I said put your money where your mouth is and pay your share buddy. Be a sport with your money and not with other peoples money.
Speaking of democracy if we are all equal at the voting booth then we shouldn't all be equal before the tax man or is that too much democracy for you? The founders did set up the country with voting limited to taxpayers. And they were right about that. Perhaps the republicans ought to go along with card check with the following provision, no secret elections and everyone pays the maximum rate that the candidates party they voted for advocates. The maximum rate only. Lets see how many real leftist there are when it costs them. And abolish the withholding tax. Let every clown like you have to fork up your taxes every quarter. Gross income will be less of an accounting fantasy and net income will become more of a nightmare. We are all equal aren't we under the law so buddy you and your fellow parasites can walk the walk and talk the talk. Man up and take responsibility for your positions and pay up.
The only thing that I and other non parasite Americans want to fall apart in the US is the welfare parasite state and that day can't come soon enough. So get to work and get your second and third job so you can pick up the slack for your welfare paradise. And don't forget to pay your full measure of taxes with no deductions and at the maximum level. Put your money were your mouth is.
And finally speaking of doing the country a favor, financially in any of the last 18 years I have done this country a far greater favor than you will probably ever do in your lifetime. The one that needs go and not let the door hit on the ass on the way out is you. Go on and and get out parasite. Be a moocher elsewhere but be gone.
I would recommend that most, if not all, of you actually read the damned novel. The theme--the role of the mind in Man's existence--has a corollary: a new moral philosophy, the morality of rational egoism.
Every major event that happens in AS--from the psychological enslavement of a great tycoon by a mother, brother & wife who both hate & envy him, to the disintegration of art & music, to the obliteration of great centers of learning, to the rise of corrupt businessmen, to the destruction of great industries, to the elevation of thugs in politics, to the collapse of a nation--all derives from the ethics of self-immolation, the old morality of suicide: the 2,000 year old Judeo-Christian creed of self-sacrifice.
This is the morality of both the Dems & the Repubs. It is, oh by the way, the same morality of the Islamic killers who took down the WTC. And, OMG!, of the Koran & Islamic jihad theocratic tyranny.
Imagine that.
In terms of solutions, turning to the Repubs is like asking the Fascists for help against the Nazis--or the Maoists for help against the Marxists. As a friend of mine succinctly put it in his blog: "To oppose the Democrats' calls for sacrifice, they (the Republcans) hold up the image of Jesus dying on the cross for our sins. That is not a refutation, it is an exclamation point...."
As for the liberarians, capital "L" or otherwise, they have no ethical philosophy save the central Objectivist *political* principle, which they mimick as a mantra whenever & wherever discussions of ethics arises. Anarchy is not a solution. It's an epitaph.
Finally, if all anyone "got" out of AS was that government causes problems which it then exacerbates with solutions that later make such problems worse, it's no wonder they think of the novel as a comic book and its heroes beyond emulation.
What a bunch of hicks. No, wait. That's ad hominem. I apologize. My anger got the best of me for the moment.
A more rational way of putting it would be:
"Brothers, you asked for it."
I would recommend that most, if not all, of you actually read the damned novel. The theme--the role of the mind in Man's existence--has a corollary: a new moral philosophy, the morality of rational egoism.
Every major event that happens in AS--from the psychological enslavement of a great tycoon by a mother, brother & wife who both hate & envy him, to the disintegration of art & music, to the obliteration of great centers of learning, to the rise of corrupt businessmen, to the destruction of great industries, to the elevation of thugs in politics, to the collapse of a nation--all derives from the ethics of self-immolation, the old morality of suicide: the 2,000 year old Judeo-Christian creed of self-sacrifice.
This is the morality of both the Dems & the Repubs. It is, oh by the way, the same morality of the Islamic killers who took down the WTC. And, OMG!, of the Koran & Islamic jihad theocratic tyranny.
Imagine that.
In terms of solutions, turning to the Repubs is like asking the Fascists for help against the Nazis--or the Maoists for help against the Marxists. As a friend of mine succinctly put it in his blog: "To oppose the Democrats' calls for sacrifice, they (the Republcans) hold up the image of Jesus dying on the cross for our sins. That is not a refutation, it is an exclamation point...."
As for the liberarians, capital "L" or otherwise, they have no ethical philosophy save the Objectivist *political* principle, which they mimick as a mantra whenever & wherever discussions of ethics arises. Anarchy is not a solution. It's an epitaph.
Finally, if all anyone "got" out of AS was that government causes problems which it then exacerbates with solutions that later make such problems worse, it's no wonder they think of the novel as a comic book and its heroes beyond emulation.
What a bunch of hicks. No, wait. That's ad hominem. I apologize. My anger got the best of me for the moment.
A more rational way of putting it would be:
"Brothers, you asked for it."
Well put, Steven. Methinks we are witness to a hissy fit. Folks bellyache about some iconic "250 grand" benchmark, while tepidly commenting on the setup for the lower tax brackets.... it is inane. There are strong governmentalists and there are strong anti-governmentalists(with nearly all of us somewhere between those bookends.) Where were these complainers, when the prior administrations and congresses were wasting money, and letting the governmentalists' programs push us away from liberties?
Most John Galt wannabee's present a Cliff Notes version of Atlas Shrugged. The book is an art form akin to the art form of "Dr. Strangelove." Ayn Rand was far more talented at nonfiction than at fiction writing. A reader has failed to cogitate about Atlas Shrugged, if the novel didn't serve as a "gateway drug" to her nonfiction writing.
If the movie gets completed, the trailers will give the impression that Ragnar is the main character(confrontations, explosions, terror on the high seas.) The novel's chase after Quentin Daniels will be modernized to have a ten-minute car chase each time "the destroyer" does his thing. Will Hollywood's super-duper vehicle be called the John Batmobile, or the Galtmobile?
Doing the best we could with what we had available, and prioritizing. But, this is like saying, "Where were you when they hooked up your cojones to a few D cells? And now you're complaining when they brought out the arc-welder?"
Bart
Finland also has (or had, last time I checked) the highest suicide rate in the world.
It hasn't. You know, it's really easy to verify this things before posting them, with google and all that. And even if it did, the argument itself is not very good. There is a great discussion about suicide rates across countries, their causes, comparability, etc. But, accepting that argument, maybe we should all follow the example of the economy in Peru.
Sure, because the lower brackets employ so many people. Neo-Revisionist-Keynesian bilge.
They cuts in lower brackets fall on people who have low savings, and thus are the most effective in rising overall spending.
We have a crash in demand. Cutting taxes on employers right now doesn't make any sense. Employers are not cutting expenses because of taxes. They are doing it because nobody is buying anything from them.
Finally, even if you think there is a problem with this theory, it has nothing "revisionist" about it. On the contrary, its very standard.
A final note, citing some thoughts from the comments section of another blog. Original source here
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2009/03/memo-to-conservative-wingnuts-john-galt-is-not-a-christian.html#comments
robertdfeinman
One of the key reasons Galt could withdraw from society and be self sufficient is that he had invented a perpetual motion machine.
If you have an unlimited source of energy you can afford to live by (and for) yourself. Until then you need community.
Apparently no one notices that Rand's utopia not only depends upon a non-existent type of human personality, but also requires the laws of physics to be repealed.
Somehow this fits within the whole alternate universe that libertarians inhabit.
Chris adds
Actually, that's nowhere near sufficient. Unless Galt also creates a race of robot slaves, he'll need to do his own laundry, cooking, raise his own food, make his own clothing, etc., etc... All of those things require energy, but energy isn't the *only* thing they require. They're complex tasks that involve conditional behavior - decisionmaking. Unintelligent machines would require maintenance even after their original construction, and intelligent ones would duplicate the "unproductive" classes he had supposedly left behind.
One can almost imagine the strenuous thought process of Ayn Rand when conceiving Galt's Gulch. How can I make the gulch sustainable? Whom among the noble rebelling geniuses is going to do the uncreative, menial, tedious, but quite essential tasks that are as necessary in the gulch as everywhere else in the world? I certainly can't include the despicable moochers and looters. I want to paint them as bureaucratic parasits, not recognize them as productive individuals.
In the end, she couldn't, of course, find a proper answer, so she chose a technological cop out.
" They cuts in lower brackets fall on people who have low savings, and thus are the most effective in rising overall spending.
We have a crash in demand. Cutting taxes on employers right now doesn't make any sense. Employers are not cutting expenses because of taxes. They are doing it because nobody is buying anything from them.
Finally, even if you think there is a problem with this theory, it has nothing "revisionist" about it. On the contrary, its very standard.
Posted by Daniel Ferreira | March 8, 2009 6:34 PM"
Some people apparently never heard of concepts like retained earnings and net margins. Retained earnings can help offset bank borrowings, which right now are not so easy to get or that cheap. Or improve the ratios which may help improve the credit quality of the borrower. Or be used to prepare for expansion, even in bad times virtually every fiscally sound business can find areas of growth to invest in. Those things result in economic growth, the job pool expansion and that results in more spending and increased demand. And that in turn results in more tax receipts.
All this gulch nonsense being perpetuated among among socialist chattering classes deludes them from the main point; earning less to stay under the maximum tax rate and the loss of deductions.
The productive sector of society is getting tired of subsidizing the freeloaders, not the need for or government or abolishing government. Business people understand the difference between an unnecessary expense and an investment. The Obama Administration and the current democrat leadership is simply the straw that is about to break the camel's back.
Guys & Gals,
you are starting to repeat yourselves.
In an attempt to help with that, try to define:
1) G, a Galt.
2) Cg, the contribution of Galts to society.
3) Cgr, the range of Cg
4) Cgc, the current value.
5) Cg\, the effect of a fall to minimum Cg.
6) Cg/, the effect of a rise to maximum Cg.
I, myself, am not enough of a Galt to create an
objective means of arriving at numerical values
for any of the above, but in my conservative
estimation, we are all about to find out, soon,
again, thru painful experience, just how much we
depend on the efforts of our betters to maintain
our society.
.. just how much we depend on the efforts of our betters to maintain
our society.
The fantasy that we depend on our "betters" and not ourselves to maintain society is the damaging idea of Rand which is now coming home to roost.
The productive sector of society is getting tired of subsidizing the freeloaders
And what would a college kid like you know about the productive sector of society?
You are overlooking the enabling characteristics of the crooked polititians, without whom the parasitic business leaders would not be able to flourish and, temporarily, prosper.
The parasitic busness leaders create and empower the crooked politicians. If you crazed ideologues ever pullled your heads out of your libertarian theory books and looked at the world around you, this would be very obvious to you. How the hell did Chris Dodd get to where he is? Corrupt businessmen put him there.
If there were no crooked politicians, crooked businessmen would have to create them. A least that's been the history of the world up to now.
The Democrats "stimulus package", actually a payoff to people who gave money to Democrats, was feverently supported by the US Chamber of Commerece. Where are all these noble businessmen you speak of?
No SteveM. I know a number of those people.
Unless your last name is "Koch", I think you're telling us fairy tales about your great wealth.
The fact is that you can count the number of seriously wealthy people in this country who support smaller government on your fingers. I think the odds are pretty long that one of them is spending his time on this comment thread.
I would recommend that most, if not all, of you actually read the damned novel. The theme--the role of the mind in Man's existence--has a corollary: a new moral philosophy, the morality of rational egoism.
Well Steven, you have mastered the "egoism" part nicely. It's a shame you are about as rational as a rabid dog.
" If there were no crooked politicians, crooked businessmen would have to create them. A least that's been the history of the world up to now.
The Democrats "stimulus package", actually a payoff to people who gave money to Democrats, was feverently supported by the US Chamber of Commerece. Where are all these noble businessmen you speak of?
Posted by SteveM | March 8, 2009 11:26 PM"
Circular thinking. If the politician did not seek the bribe it would not be offered. Indeed the politician creates the environment necessary for the businessman to need to pay the bribe. The tax code is a prime example. By the way there are over 1 million millionaires in this country. The Obama ripoff doesn't start at the the 100 million net worth mark. The ultra wealthy you were alluding to could afford to vote socialist, their main revenue source is not taxed at ordinary income tax rates but is either tax exempt like muni bond yields or capital gains at 15%. That is why Theressa Heinz Kerry could afford to be a democrat. Tax every dollar of revenue no matter the source at Obama's new top income rates and phased out deductions and excemptions and she becomes Theressa Heinz as in the husband she inherited her money from.
" The productive sector of society is getting tired of subsidizing the freeloaders
And what would a college kid like you know about the productive sector of society?
Posted by SteveM | March 8, 2009 11:16 PM"
Sorry to burst your bubble dude, but I am a fifty something businessman paying way to much taxes to subsidize you.
cubanbob
Some people apparently never heard of concepts like retained earnings and net margins. Retained earnings can help offset bank borrowings, which right now are not so easy to get or that cheap. Or improve the ratios which may help improve the credit quality of the borrower.
Oh cubanbob, you're just adorable. Keep it coming.
Anyone reading this, I encourage you to read all other cubanbob posts. This is first quality bullshit, and guess what? He seems to have an endless amount of it. I guess he is right after all, we are freeloading. I feel we should be paying something for the laughs.
So, let's see, retained earnings. Very simply, this is the slice of profits a company keeps instead of giving it to the shareholders. So one (partial) solution to a lending freeze is by financing future investment with its own money. So far so good, right?
Except that government influences retained earnings by changing the corporate income tax, or, for short, corporate tax. Obama, of course, didn't increase the corporate tax. He increased the upper bracket of the personal income tax. Reducing the corporate tax is actually one of the few sensible proposals advanced by congressional republicans, so it makes perfect sense that cubanbob doesn't mention it.
It's surprising that cubanbob, with its exactly 100 people business (priceless, isn't it?) that he is moving overseas, doesn't know how taxation works at such a basic level.
All this gulch nonsense being perpetuated among among socialist chattering classes deludes them from the main point; earning less to stay under the maximum tax rate and the loss of deductions.
The idea of earning less is so incredibly stupid that even economic illiterate nutjobs like "Dr.Helen", Michelle Malkin and Reynolds should know better.
Let's try to apply the idea to Michelle Malkin, for she's the-most-lunatic-of-them-all. She earns money through publicity on her blog and syndicated columns. How would she "go Galt"? Does she slack by writing less columns and posting less or her blog? Does she writ and post at the same rate, but things that don't please her nutjob base so much? Well, if she does either, people will just switch to the blog of some other weirdo and that's that. So, how about if she asks less money for advertising in her blog, or for syndication of her columns? Then, those advertisers and newspapers will have more money to do other stuff. None of these things hurt the economy, but all of them hurt Michelle Malkin. Because, even though have I little doubt that she makes more than $250,000 (and thus, according to cubanbob and other dimwits, is part of the very select "productive sector of society"), she is quite replaceable to the people who pay her.
But let's suppose a situation in that you
- have immediate control over the level of your income
- have a job in which you are not replaceable or it's very expensive to do so
- the money that is now not spent by others on you will sit idle instead of being spent on something else (this is crucial if you want to damage the economy, and extremely hard to fulfill).
In these awfully restrictive case, so restrictive that, frankly, I can't think of any example right now, GDP will diminish.
But here's the thing: the people who do this they damage themselves much, much more. Why?
I think our mogul friend cubanbob is not just a stranger to the concept of corporate tax. He also doesn't grasp the idea of marginal tax rate. It is only after the first 250,000 that people start paying the 39,6% rate. So, you can:
- earn something like $280,000, and are paying the rate on $30,000. You lower your income to $250,000. This is little sacrifice (still, 18 grand is a lot of money), but don't kid yourself: this is pretty negligible to the government.
- earn 2 million dollars. Reduce this to 250,000. Here it hurts the government more - $700,000 - ouch! Except that you yourself are reducing you income to one sixth by doing this (from net 1.21 million to close to net $200,000). You have to be a regular saint to do this kind of self-immolation. I trust not too many people will.
So, to all Galters who, besides being selfish pricks, have such a grand idea of themselves not to see that they are pretty much condemned to fail: best of luck! Let's talk in a year or two, and see how it turned out.
About the "gulch nonsense", it is becoming clear that cubanbob didn't read Atlas Shrugged. Oh well, not really a surprise by now. But leaving blissfully ignorant positions aside, the "gulch nonsense" is certainly worth addressing.
By writing Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand did a good job of characterizing the dangers of excessive bureaucracy as an obstacle to entrepreneurship and individual initiative. While her criticism is not very original, it has the advantage of being wildly popular. She had a knack for writing clear, elegant, involving texts, and for being admirably honest and uncompromising. In spite of its 1300 pages, people usually don't read Atlas Shrugged; they devour it in a few days. When you finish it, you will probably carry throughout your life a healthy skepticism of government action done in the name of the general good.
But many readers, in particular the younger ones who haven't had contact with other, more boring, political philosophers, and how work and businesses operates in real life (Rand didn't either), such readers usually develop an infatuation with her simple, energetic ideas. The consequence is known: you spend some time trying to force one's perception of reality to fit the world of Atlas Shrugged, instead of acknowledging that some stuff is so out of this world it may as well be bad science fition. And some of it is, literally, bad science fiction. The differences between Rand's world and ours become very clear in Galt's Gulch. This is Ayn Rand's idea of transition to utopia, and, as I pointed out in the previous post, it's not only fatally flawed in many ways, it's more obviously so that the rest of the book.
"very gifted observer, and she had a quite subtle understanding of how all the interconnected elements of an industrial economy fit together."
I think this is what Megan considers herself to be. However....
Funny that Megan thinks Rand's understanding of today's crisis comes strictly from observation (never mind that she was already in the US by 1926). That Rand's understanding of human nature and free markets would allow her to abstract these ideas is off the table. Give me a break.
Remember, this is coming the self-described libertarian Megan McArdle, who was in favor of both bailouts.
Well now, it's obvious that some of us have worked are asses off all our lives and view what's happening in horror. Other's, it's Peanut Butter Jelly time. In a good way I suppose. And yeah I got 6 less employees than I had a month ago. The other 3 have straightened their asses out. That you collective shit for brains is the next two years. Hope your next.
The hegemony with religious right is the cause of current crisis and abusive economics.
The right wing must are so desperate given that religious right will no longer a viable force and since that they can not find a "live" noble price winning economists to support their rants, they resort to dated fiction and rants by Ayan Rand the dead novelist. Its the fear of masses that they are hiding from.
Religious right
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/media/play/wmv/7504/26496
Surely someone has already mentioned "allegory."
Rather than wade through this long thread before commenting, may I point out that the novel is an allegory? It primarily uses elements of story telling which are as old as Gilgamesh.
Fable: a narration intended to enforce a useful truth
Also, please look up "allegory" at the Glossary of Literary Terms.
Ayn Rand grew up in a society that was deep into heavy industry envy, so her choice of protagonists is no surprise.
Note her striking monosyllabic pen name(Ayn Rand.) Maybe it is just a coincidence that the novel's heroine first falls in love with Classic Nobility having (of course) polisyllabic first name and surname(plus his other names in between.) The next lover is of presumably middle class background, and the surname is simply "Roark." Finally, the name "John Galt" tops them all, and the guy has essentially no provenance. (Or should the term be "provenience" since this is definitely an allegory?)
These last two paragraphs are just the beginning... how about developing a new thread about the artistic elements. It would still consist of massive speculation but it might at least have less carping and whining.
Please note that the author was quite dismissive of libertarianism. And people NEVER wanted to get her started on anarchism!
After her experience with The Fountainhead she yearned to take another stab at a novel. Atlas Shrugged is a good novel but not a great novel, and it can be an awful novel if it is approached as just another action thriller to be read at the beach. Look up what Bennett Cerf had to say about the lady.
Various commenters display an embarrassing degree of concreteness. The book's author was essentially a writer with strong poltical views. Her views are well worth reading, but her prescriptions are presented elsewhere. I myself believe that several of her views are quite valuable, maybe essential, reading.
If Ayn Rand were alive today, she would probably say that we're in a societal attitudinal predicament, not in just a governmental or economic predicament. It is a gross mistake to regard the story line as, even remotely, a plan of response for US citizens. Educated people in the 21st century should appreciate that cloning is risky business. Copying from what is believed to be a cheat sheet is even worse. Use of one's own noggin seems to be the way to go. (I wish to not plagerize her catchy phrase.)
" So, let's see, retained earnings. Very simply, this is the slice of profits a company keeps instead of giving it to the shareholders. So one (partial) solution to a lending freeze is by financing future investment with its own money. So far so good, right?
Except that government influences retained earnings by changing the corporate income tax, or, for short, corporate tax. Obama, of course, didn't increase the corporate tax. He increased the upper bracket of the personal income tax. Reducing the corporate tax is actually one of the few sensible proposals advanced by congressional republicans, so it makes perfect sense that cubanbob doesn't mention it.
It's surprising that cubanbob, with its exactly 100 people business (priceless, isn't it?) that he is moving overseas, doesn't know how taxation works at such a basic level."
No fool. Most businesses are small businesses. Not publicly traded companies. Sub Chapter S corporations. Not C Corporations but then again if you knew what you were talking about you would know that. The type of businesses that employ the majority of people in this country. Please continue to make a fool of yourself.
Of course if you actually knew what you were talking about then you would know that the business owners not only have to pay the top rate as well as the phased out deductions but the payroll tax as well on themselves as employees and employers but as employers on the rest of their staff. Of course ever rising payroll tax limits and Odumbo's plan to eliminate the ceiling effectively not only raises the owners labor costs but their overall tax rate on their net as Sub S Corps. Then there is the not inconsiderable matter of state income taxes and property taxes and other taxes. With the deduction phase out and eliminations its just make the total rate even higher. Makes for an interesting study of how rates effect business planning as business move out of the higher tax states to the lower tax states. Gee Southern California had a vibrant aircraft industry with highly paid employees. What happened to it? The shipyards in the Northeast? Where did those jobs go? The steel jobs in Pittsburgh, where did they go? And all of the jobs that small business created to serve those industries? Good paying jobs. Just maybe high taxes and excessive new age lefty rules and regulations might have had a role in their disappearance. Starbucks and charming cafes are such a wonderful replacement aren't they? Funny thing, a lot of the small machine shop business became importers, the owners shrunk their payrolls (no need for factory staff) and sell to the leaner companies such as the mini mills. And with the internet architects can reduce their cost by having drafting work done overseas, create an entity abroad to purchase the services and invoice the amount they want to pay themselves abroad. Just pay the local tax (if the country has a tax treaty with the US) and they can also defer the Obama rate until he gets the boot and they repatriate the dividend home. And the local tax is a tax credit when repatriated, not a deduction, Dan you do understand the difference between a deduction and a credit? Lawyers can do the same with a lot of the routine paralegal stuff. Radiologist can also farm out a bit.
And there is nothing parasites like you and the government can do about it because it is perfectly legal. No one owes you a living and no one needs to be robbed to subsidize you.
Naturally no one is going willfully drop their income from 2mm to 250k. Instead they partially shift their revenues elsewhere to defer the tax until better democrat communist free days. Contrary to what you may think the income levels that you are describing are earned largely by business owners and not professionals, the professionals depending on their circumstances can do some of what I suggested to keep themselves in the tax comfort zone, especially if they are already older and with less of an immediate need for cash. And most of those business owners are old enough that they can afford to delay taking the money. Homes paid off, kids out of college or those funds for college set aside already, most of their debts paid off, they can afford to be patient for a couple of years. The return on capital is worth it.
" So, to all Galters who, besides being selfish pricks, have such a grand idea of themselves not to see that they are pretty much condemned to fail: best of luck! Let's talk in a year or two, and see how it turned out."
You have self described yourself perfectly, a selfish prick who demands that others pay his way. Two years from now at the rate Hussein The Communist Clown is proceeding with his trusty Marxist Comrades Reid and Pelosi will be handed their ass as Congress changes hands. Ask Bill Clinton, he had it done to him and for far less.
Are you really so stupid and delusional to believe that these unbelievably incompetent tax cheating morons that have caused the stock market and the by extension the nations 401k, pensions, endowments to drop over 20% in the less than 60 days since inauguration day and over 30% since October when the One we ain't been waiting for was anointed to be the winner are actually not going get kicked to the curb in the 2010 elections?
" Oh cubanbob (Daniel Ferreira), you're just adorable. Keep it coming.
Anyone reading this, I encourage you to read all other cubanbob (Daniel Ferreira) posts. This is first quality bullshit, and guess what? He seems to have an endless amount of it. I guess he is right after all, we are freeloading. I feel we should be paying something for the laughs"
Fixed that for you.
Do continue, your bullshit while not of first quality is amusing in a low comedic way and truly you appear to have an endless supply of it as well.
I'm sure the readers who actually work for a living and earn enough to pay a meaningful amount of taxes understand the concept of what constitutes net income and the desire not to be tax slaves to parasites like you never mind being mad as hell for their loss of their net worth thanks to the new democratic communist party. They have a quaint notion that their money is theirs and not yours. A radical concept in the Democratic Communist State of Obama. But this too shall pass and become a horrible nightmare and a cautionary tale to the youth to never vote for the communist again.
The fact that so many institutions are collapsing and all governments are desperately running about like clueless headless chickens is all the evidence I need to conclude that many of our greatest and good have already shrugged. I have, too. I am not prepared to give of my best if it is to be taken from me by looters, moochers or any government.JD.
The John Galt-a-likes are the ones who have messed up the US for a generation. If only Greenspan and his pals had gone on strike 9 years ago you might not have a 10 trillion dollar deficit.
Hey, I'm sure a tax cut will solve everything!
no one has john galted because of higher tax rates because they haven't been raised yet.
if business owners are cutting back, it's because of the economy -- which was wrecked for minor league john galts by the major league john galts who ruined the banking system for the benefit of themselves alone.
how much more libertarian can one be?
Hi guys,
I'm seeing a lot of Left / Right - Democrat vs Republican rhetoric in this forum. Remember that Clinton / Summers / Greenspan and Rubin removed Glass / Steagal and made it illegal to regulate derivatives and then eight years of Bush / Greenspan / Bernanke and Paulson along with the Republican 2004 decision to remove the leverage cap for US investment banks. These decisions led to the current financial crisis (CFC)and lays the blame squarely at the feet of both the Democrats and the Republicans. It's not a left vs right thing anymore - you need to look at the interests that are controlling both parties. Who has contributed the most to both parties. Have a look at Barak Obama, the biggest contributor by far is Wall Street. Barak has more Wall Street Financial interests in his executive / cabinet then any US government in history. That's who you should blame, the Financiers are sitting at a level above the Republicans and Democrats and they are dictating the policies. That's why you have the same policies being enacted from Clinton to Bush to Obama.
Cheers
Uenuku
"Not only does Randism/Libertarianism fail as utility-maximizing political economy, morally speaking it's as inconsistent, and as lame, as can be."
Doubtless you suggest the state, rather than individuals (or groups comprised voluntarily of individuals) will allocate resources and maximize utility better than a free market? The 'moral' track-record of centrally planned economies is not exactly exemplary.
Not that we have seen a free market in this country for a very long time, but the question still begs an answer.