This kind of analysis is part of the flood of economic mumbo-jumbo to which we are endlessly subjected. It’s usually done by people who never had to worry about balancing paying for shelter, food, all sorts of taxes, and the ever-spiraling cost of medical care in this country. Reading about how horribly the top 1% money-makers of this country suffer at the hands of evil people who would have the gall to tax their (omigod, progressively no less) income and worse, “redistribute it to the poor” would be hysterically funny were it not taken so seriously by otherwise rational people.
I’d be happy to deconstruct your delusions but there are just too many packed into that one paragraph and time, after all, is money.
Suffice it to say, the progressive income tax is part and parcel of a Keynesian economic scheme that greatly harms the working people while disproportionately benefitting those employed in finance and government. Eventually though, as Keynes himself admitted, the structure will collapse and I hope you’re not a Baby Boomer because one day they are going to be spat on in the streets.
Reactionary’s sneering condescension always guarantees that people like me won’t pay attention to their assertions. As a parish priest and (God forbid) a pre-Boomer (by one year), I have watched with growing anger how hard-working people have made decisions not to seek medical care because they did not want to impoverish their families further; not to purchase medications because they had to feed their families and pay rent and utilities. Every day I wonder how people can make ends meet in an avaricious and predatory culture which legalizes interest rates of 25% and higher and then allows fraudulent advertising to entrap people into accepting them. All I know is that the guys who run Enron and GE and Microsoft and all their lackeys make more with their stock manipulations and golden parachutes and “business deals” in a day than many of the folks I know can hope to make in ten years of hard labor. So please, reactionary, spare me your tears for the wealthy. As far as financiers and government people go, I have little respect for the crooks who vote themselves 16% percent pay raises and unlimited expense accounts at 2 in the morning and who couldn’t recognize an ethic if it slapped them in the face. And I have even less respect for those who whine about Social Security and Medicare – especially since they are “exempt” from Social Security taxes when they earn more than 100 grand a year. Reactionary can sneer all he wants – and keep playing the same old tune. And “Deconstruct” all he wants. It won’t put food on the old lady’s table – it won’t provide health care for the kid of a family that makes less with $30000 a year – it won’t do anything except make the rich man feel he’s being abused. Reactionary can take it up with those paragons of Christian compassion – Rush and Ms. Coulter – I’m sure they’ll agree with him.
Two quiet points: first, lower marginal tax rates are generally associated with more robust growth; higher marginal tax rates dampen or reverse growth. Stagnation hurts the working poor the most (folks just above the reach of govt programs but not middle class), and they are generally the least prepared to deal with such shocks (less differentiated skills, capital, etc). Second, income is only one perspective on economic well-being. One wonders what would happen if we looked at tax burden vs. individual net worth, and tried to understand how the various tax codes inhibit wealth accumulation by some (folks who spend a larger percentage of income on food, clothing, etc, inferior goods) while subsidizing wealth accumulation by others (mortgage deductions).
Dan, you sound very full of bitterness towards people who work hard and make substantial income. It also sounds as if you are in favor of wealth redistribution. Am I wrong?
Not always, no. But at the rate the printing presses are currently being run, there is just not going to be enough economic growth to keep the dollar from trending toward its intrinsic value.
Inflation in mature economies is pretty universal. The three options to pay for government programs are taxation, borrowing, and printing more money (inflation). The fourth option is to cut said programs, but that’s not going to happen. When you read in the newpapers that a program was “cut” it means the budget only grew slightly faster than inflation.
Taxation is never popular, and is usualy the last idea to be tried. borrowing is a little better, lets you put the bill off 30 years, at which point you can issue a new bond for another 30. The unborn tend to be a weak voting block, so this is a popular option, but you can’t use it exclusivly. It works best when paired with depreciation (inflation), because then you can borrow $100 at todays value, and pay back $100 at that value, which may only be worth $80 today. So when your son inherits your senate seat, he has less pressure tor aise taxes to pay for your vote-buying programs. Works nicely.
Dan, why not take your theories all the way, then? What would be your principled disagreement to having the government seize everybody’s earnings, divide the total by the population and send out even-steven checks?
Reactionary – agreed, printing money is bad. But let’s return to the question of why certain things tend to cost more over time and other things. What costs more? Things like healthcare, health insurance (two different goods), electricity, education. What things have gotten cheaper over time? Communication, travel, cars, banking. The pattern I see (grossly oversimplified) is markets that have been deregulated or were competitive to start with offer cheaper goods (or a broader range of goods a various price points), whereas heavily regulated markets don’t. So to tie this back to Dan’s concerns, it might be helpful to note that simply redistributing resources to the poor so they can afford higher prices is not the only option – we can address the root cause(s) of higher prices.
Ah, Wilson, you’re talking about prices in real terms, or constant dollars. I think Reactionary meant it in nominal terms, as in what one dollar bill will purchase. And you are absolutely correct, the effect of regualtion is to distort prices in order to benefit some group, typicaly a politicaly powerful minority (often through the errection of barriers to entry disguised as “proections).
#9–(or anyone else)–So it seems like deflation of US currency would be a good foreign policy objective if I were a country like (oh I don’t know) China or Iran?
To Dan Crawford – I hope you know theology better than you know economics. As for health care costs, how about taking back the tens of millions John Edwards made from a class action lawsuit against hospitals. Shakespeare was right about lawyers, at least those who make their millions off of contingency fees for class action lawsuits.
On a more mundane note – no mention in the article was made of estate taxes or taxes paid on social security benefits when paid. Let’s see, if I invest in a company and get paid dividends, the same dollar of earnings gets taxed three separate times – once to the corporation as earnings, another time to me as income, and a third time to my heirs. That sure is fair. Or if I save and invest wisely, when I collect my Social Security pension payments, up to 80% of them are taxed as a reward to me for saving so I can have a comfortable retirement income. That makes a lot of sense.
Let’s face it folks, where else in the world can you have a group of people (politicians) who can buy votes by taking money away from some people and giving it to the people who voted for them.
My humble proposal is to give one vote in the presidential elections to each person as a baseline and then one additional vote for every $10,000 in federal taxes they paid in the preceding four years. That should even things out a bit.
“Dan, why not take your theories all the way, then? What would be your principled disagreement to having the government seize everybody’s earnings, divide the total by the population and send out even-steven checks?”
Sorry to disappoint you, but I don’t hide under the covers at night reading my concealed copies of Karl Marx. He makes as much sense as Keynes and Hayek. You might want to respond to what I actually wrote and to the concerns I actually expressed. But to answer your question: no. For the simple reason that the government already seizes my earnings and pays it out in huge subsidies to people making far more than I could ever dream of making. But please, read what I wrote and respond to that.
Reactionary considers me terminally stupid – excuse me, invincibly ignorant. So be it. Unfortunately, I am even less convinced by his name-calling than by his “argument”.
I read reactionary’s concern as a moral one. That being, that (regardless of what long-term economic projections say) taxing people of wealth at a greater level than the impoverished is the right thing to do from an equity standpoint (i.e. fairness). The argument here is that since this society (collectively) has provided the wealthy with the opportunity to become fat-cats, the fat-cats should owe a larger percentage back to society than others. The others being individuals whom because of (collective) discrimination (social, racial, gender, etc.) have failed to meritocratically achieve what the largely protestant/white male business exec has.
I’ve floated the trial balloon–You can shoot it down now.
In the free market, people amass wealth by meeting consumer demand. Their “debt” to society has been paid. I have already expressed my disagreement with the inflation associated with public deficit spending as benefitting upstream recipients of the new dollars at the expense of downstream recipients.
Dan,
What is your beef with Hayek? And since you dismiss Keynes and Marx as well, I think your bitterness is with the iron laws of economics themselves.
Dan – though I consider some of what you wrote to be over the top, I share the same concerns. On the other hand, I understand you to be supporting the idea of forced wealth redistribution – and, make no mistake, that’s what our tax system is – which prompted my question of, implicitly, where you draw the line.
I consider such a system to be irrelevant to Christian compassion. What would be relevant would be any of us, as individuals, sending our IRS checks to the people with the financial crises you mention. But, as it is, when the government serves as the intermediary, the question of our Christian duty vanishes.
Why do you not trust the American people to do the right thing, without coercion? Private charity can be as effective as public.
I never cease to be amazed at the gospel-free zone that seems to overtake this blog as soon as the talk turns to money and markets. Did Jesus really just intend some vaguely edifying spiritual point when he talked about the eye of the needle?
Phil #19, you make a good point. Good tax policy is always redistributive in some fashion. It may redistribute the money up or down the economic ladder–Or It may redistribute it to big government run programs like the interstate highway system, or medicare/medicaid…Taxes always redistribute.
#20-I’ve always blithely assumed that Jesus was a free-market capitalist…Seriously, it does seem inconsistent to attempt to bring gospel values to bear on things like homosexual marriage, while saying that gospel values don’t apply on things like taxation.
I believe one can be Christian and giving without believing that we need to be taxed into oblivion. Some seem to equate giving money to the government as doing something Godly. Christian charity comes from the heart and is demonstrated by our individual actions. I do not feel compelled to let the government make my charitable decisions for me.
#20, as taxation removes individual will, I actualy think it’s a negative at it removes scope to choose to do good. It supports the idea that if there is a problem, the nebulous “government” should fix it, instead of working to fix it yourself through your own deeds. I’m not calling for the end of government, don’t get me wrong, but I think the two poles of government action and private action need to exist in tension (I hate using that word now. . .) in order to maximize the benefits both to society and individuals. I could express this better but I’m trying to get out of here on time on a Friday afternoon.
#13, US deflation could be good for China in making Chinese imports cheaper in the US, but the resultant economic turmoil could hurt them more than it helped by cutting deman. Better to keep their own currency artificially cheap. They are taking a page from Japan’s book.
Iran has actualy worked to create higher inflation, part of why we redesigned all our money a few years ago was due to Iranian counterfeiting operations which aimed both to help the Iranian regime by giving them free money, and hurt us through unplanned inflation.
The only obligation you owe to “society” is not to offload costs on others. You see how progressive taxation and government regulation becomes problematic very quickly.
Andrew,
We are not experiencing inflation because of counterfeit c-notes from Iran. We are experiencing inflation because of our own fiscal irresponsibility.
Reac, I never said we were. Only that Iran saw that (marginal increase in inflation) as a useful add-on to the benefit they recieved from printing $100 bills to use for their own purpsoes, like funding Hamas. Nate had specificaly asked about China and Iran and deflation, so I mentioned it.
I agree that the bulk of our inflation comes from our own defecit spending. Where we differ is I don’t think the gold standard is a viable solution. That’s a whole other debate, which we’ve had before and we’re not gonna convice the other, so no need clogging this thread with it. We are in broad agreement so far in this thread, I think.
Tragomylos, “I never cease to be amazed at the gospel-free zone that seems to overtake this blog as soon as the talk turns to money and markets. Did Jesus really just intend some vaguely edifying spiritual point when he talked about the eye of the needle?”
Have you no concept of nuance and validation? Has the ECUSA/TEC approach to Scripture taught you nothing? Why should your private opinions regarding what Jesus meant have any validity other than that which you ascrible to them? Are you implying that there are metanarratives within the Scripture which must be obeyed? Do you not welcome diversity of opinion on matters economic? Hasn’t the Jesus Seminar debunked most of your cherished imaginary beliefs? Why should modern and postmodern persons be held to your archaic conceptualizations? Have you not heard of the “anti-tax” gene and the inborn nature of opposing regressive behaviours of governments based on unenlightened presuppositions?
/sarcasm
Why is it only what Jesus said about money that matters, Trog?
What always jumps out in threads like these is each side avoiding the log in its own eye. From the point of view of the “rich,” by which is meant here, those earning high salaries, they are unhappy about being told that they don’t “give back enough to society,” when they are being taxed at 33% or more. People with trust funds, foundations, and so on, can get away without the taxes, but people on salary pay. It’s probably quite true that many such could give more in charitable donations, and to organizations that actually help the poor rather than building a new art museum or something (there’s the log in the “rich” eye), but how much tax is enough? The log seldom acknowledged in the “poor” eye is the Tenth Commandment. Are all “poor” people in that situation because “rich” people earn too much? Why is it unjust to think of higher-salaried people keeping 66% of their salaries? Would the complaints cease if they lost 50%?
Dan Crawford: WOW! GREAT JOB!!! Those of us who are close to working folks know that something is very, very wrong, and that workers in the US continue to lose ground. And #28, Katherine, you nailed it! Thanks!
One of the big problems with the progressive tax is that it actually hurts many working families. I know people who refuse over time or limit over time work because it bumps them into a higher bracket and they have to work many more hours to get even. I think the fair tax could solve manyu of the current inequities in our tax system. The other thing not mentioned is that people rarely go to poor people to ask for jobs.
#30-yeah, and wealthy folks are rarely willing / able to do everything required to turn a profit by themselves. Regarding your first statement that the progressive income tax hurts the working class–David Stockman (Reagan’s director of OMB) said the exact same thing in 1980–We’ve seen a downward trend in real middle-class wages ever since the federal government decided to resurrect the 19th century idea of “trickle down” after the 1980 election.
#25–I guess if my only obligation is to be productive, then it shouldn’t bother me to work two jobs and still not have health care or enough to make ends meet. It WOULD bother me though. Who is going to even out that inequality? I know, no one should because that’s my lot in life (and it’s bad tax policy). Go ahead and go on past reactionary– I’ll wait for the Samaritan.
Nate, it’s more like “we’ve seen a downward trend in real middle class wages since the rest of the developed world recovered from WW2 and the US no longer represents 50% of global GDP.” The downward trend started good bit before Reagan. US wages had tended to be high due to labor shortages in the 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries. That’s how we could absorb/attract the “huddled masses yearning to make 50% more than they make at home.” Then in the 20th century the rest of the world’s industrial plant got bombed to oblivion. In the late 60s/early 70s the European and Japanese economies recovered and began to compete fully once more. And real wages here began to decline due to competition combined with the inflationary policies brought about to defend the free world from communism, while at the same time pouring money into social programs at home which have been quite successful at maintaining poverty, even spreading it.
When politicians say they want to fund any new thing by taxing “the rich”, they really mean [i] you. [/i] This is because the quantities of revenue required are so enormous, there really aren’t enough rich people out there to fund them, even were they taxed at 100%. (And once you tax them at 100%, consider that next year they just might not have produced any income for you to confiscate). So if you make $40,000 a year, you, my friend, are [i] rich. [/i]
A Christian must remember that greed (which drives capitalism) and envy (the animating spirit behind socialism) are both deadly sins. If with intemperate zeal we seek to punish the greedy, we ourselves might be falling into envy. And vice-versa.
Nate your class envy is showing. I worked in a machine shop with the owner (who eventually became wealthy). He started in his basement with a lathe ( he barrowed the money from his mom for th lathe) and believe me when I say he did everything any body else did and more. Many wealthy people I know and know of did the samething. I really don’t understand your point. If your a Ted Kennedy and have your wealth in trusts in Tihite maybe your right, but Teddy Boy doesn’t pay taxes.
“Kevin Drum, though weary from constantly having to point this out, notes that these calculations only include federal income tax and that, when one considers Social Security (aka “payrollâ€) taxes, things suddenly flatten out. Indeed, the tax burden becomes curvilinear, with “the 5,000 richest people in the country†paying less than those making $100,000. Further, if one includes excise taxes, state income taxes, sales taxes, or property taxes, the system is flatter yet, with those in the top and bottom quintile actually paying a slightly higher share of their incomes than those in the middle.”
This is a discussion of tax policy, which has little to do with generosity or biblical principals – concerning how I spend the resources that I have. Jesus was clear – give to ceasar what is ceasar’s and give to God what is God’s. It is a mistaken concept that we should legislate that people be generous as a “kingdom principal”. However, if the people (Ceasar) decide to be generous, then it is our responsibility to comply with the law. It is not a moral failing to disagree with a certain government policy. Though we can be called to take action about areas we think need attention.
The mistake of Christians is that over time, they abdicated the responsiblity of the church to care for people and allowed the governments to take on that burden. So now people can be less generous and claim that their taxes support a higer level of generosity.
For the retirement system, the current system is a “pay as you go” operation. It is a transfer of wealth from the current working generation to the former generation. The disparity in the current system is that Public employees do not pay into the system (nor possibly some clergy). It is a 15% contribition – shared by the employee and employer, and is capped at $90,000 (the tax). The benefit is also capped. Since much of the fund is used for government operations beyond retirement spending, it creates an inequity in the system to have many people benefit from the excess in collections, while not having contributed to the system.
In my experience as a private sector employee, having paid this FICA tax all of my working life, my teacher friends (who have not paid this) complain that my tax rate might be too low, but forget that I am paying for their parent’s retirement and they are not. A clergy friend just took a private sector job and was shocked by the amount of taxes taken out of his pay check (before he had none, but his pay was much lower).
The inequitiy of the tax system seems to be argued from the practical vew – tax the rich less and they will generate more economic activity and revenue. To the “Tax the Rich” more since there are so many more people who need assistance. These two arguements never intersect each other while people in the middle get squeezed, meanwhile being asked to give more and more of what they have less and less of.
This kind of analysis is part of the flood of economic mumbo-jumbo to which we are endlessly subjected. It’s usually done by people who never had to worry about balancing paying for shelter, food, all sorts of taxes, and the ever-spiraling cost of medical care in this country. Reading about how horribly the top 1% money-makers of this country suffer at the hands of evil people who would have the gall to tax their (omigod, progressively no less) income and worse, “redistribute it to the poor” would be hysterically funny were it not taken so seriously by otherwise rational people.
Dan,
I’d be happy to deconstruct your delusions but there are just too many packed into that one paragraph and time, after all, is money.
Suffice it to say, the progressive income tax is part and parcel of a Keynesian economic scheme that greatly harms the working people while disproportionately benefitting those employed in finance and government. Eventually though, as Keynes himself admitted, the structure will collapse and I hope you’re not a Baby Boomer because one day they are going to be spat on in the streets.
Reactionary’s sneering condescension always guarantees that people like me won’t pay attention to their assertions. As a parish priest and (God forbid) a pre-Boomer (by one year), I have watched with growing anger how hard-working people have made decisions not to seek medical care because they did not want to impoverish their families further; not to purchase medications because they had to feed their families and pay rent and utilities. Every day I wonder how people can make ends meet in an avaricious and predatory culture which legalizes interest rates of 25% and higher and then allows fraudulent advertising to entrap people into accepting them. All I know is that the guys who run Enron and GE and Microsoft and all their lackeys make more with their stock manipulations and golden parachutes and “business deals” in a day than many of the folks I know can hope to make in ten years of hard labor. So please, reactionary, spare me your tears for the wealthy. As far as financiers and government people go, I have little respect for the crooks who vote themselves 16% percent pay raises and unlimited expense accounts at 2 in the morning and who couldn’t recognize an ethic if it slapped them in the face. And I have even less respect for those who whine about Social Security and Medicare – especially since they are “exempt” from Social Security taxes when they earn more than 100 grand a year. Reactionary can sneer all he wants – and keep playing the same old tune. And “Deconstruct” all he wants. It won’t put food on the old lady’s table – it won’t provide health care for the kid of a family that makes less with $30000 a year – it won’t do anything except make the rich man feel he’s being abused. Reactionary can take it up with those paragons of Christian compassion – Rush and Ms. Coulter – I’m sure they’ll agree with him.
Two quiet points: first, lower marginal tax rates are generally associated with more robust growth; higher marginal tax rates dampen or reverse growth. Stagnation hurts the working poor the most (folks just above the reach of govt programs but not middle class), and they are generally the least prepared to deal with such shocks (less differentiated skills, capital, etc). Second, income is only one perspective on economic well-being. One wonders what would happen if we looked at tax burden vs. individual net worth, and tried to understand how the various tax codes inhibit wealth accumulation by some (folks who spend a larger percentage of income on food, clothing, etc, inferior goods) while subsidizing wealth accumulation by others (mortgage deductions).
Dan, you sound very full of bitterness towards people who work hard and make substantial income. It also sounds as if you are in favor of wealth redistribution. Am I wrong?
Dan,
You need to learn some basic economics. Start by asking yourself why things always cost more.
Reactionary – A question for you: DO things always cost more?
Not always, no. But at the rate the printing presses are currently being run, there is just not going to be enough economic growth to keep the dollar from trending toward its intrinsic value.
Inflation in mature economies is pretty universal. The three options to pay for government programs are taxation, borrowing, and printing more money (inflation). The fourth option is to cut said programs, but that’s not going to happen. When you read in the newpapers that a program was “cut” it means the budget only grew slightly faster than inflation.
Taxation is never popular, and is usualy the last idea to be tried. borrowing is a little better, lets you put the bill off 30 years, at which point you can issue a new bond for another 30. The unborn tend to be a weak voting block, so this is a popular option, but you can’t use it exclusivly. It works best when paired with depreciation (inflation), because then you can borrow $100 at todays value, and pay back $100 at that value, which may only be worth $80 today. So when your son inherits your senate seat, he has less pressure tor aise taxes to pay for your vote-buying programs. Works nicely.
And yes, I’m feeling cynical today. 🙂
Dan, why not take your theories all the way, then? What would be your principled disagreement to having the government seize everybody’s earnings, divide the total by the population and send out even-steven checks?
Reactionary – agreed, printing money is bad. But let’s return to the question of why certain things tend to cost more over time and other things. What costs more? Things like healthcare, health insurance (two different goods), electricity, education. What things have gotten cheaper over time? Communication, travel, cars, banking. The pattern I see (grossly oversimplified) is markets that have been deregulated or were competitive to start with offer cheaper goods (or a broader range of goods a various price points), whereas heavily regulated markets don’t. So to tie this back to Dan’s concerns, it might be helpful to note that simply redistributing resources to the poor so they can afford higher prices is not the only option – we can address the root cause(s) of higher prices.
Ah, Wilson, you’re talking about prices in real terms, or constant dollars. I think Reactionary meant it in nominal terms, as in what one dollar bill will purchase. And you are absolutely correct, the effect of regualtion is to distort prices in order to benefit some group, typicaly a politicaly powerful minority (often through the errection of barriers to entry disguised as “proections).
#9–(or anyone else)–So it seems like deflation of US currency would be a good foreign policy objective if I were a country like (oh I don’t know) China or Iran?
To Dan Crawford – I hope you know theology better than you know economics. As for health care costs, how about taking back the tens of millions John Edwards made from a class action lawsuit against hospitals. Shakespeare was right about lawyers, at least those who make their millions off of contingency fees for class action lawsuits.
On a more mundane note – no mention in the article was made of estate taxes or taxes paid on social security benefits when paid. Let’s see, if I invest in a company and get paid dividends, the same dollar of earnings gets taxed three separate times – once to the corporation as earnings, another time to me as income, and a third time to my heirs. That sure is fair. Or if I save and invest wisely, when I collect my Social Security pension payments, up to 80% of them are taxed as a reward to me for saving so I can have a comfortable retirement income. That makes a lot of sense.
Let’s face it folks, where else in the world can you have a group of people (politicians) who can buy votes by taking money away from some people and giving it to the people who voted for them.
My humble proposal is to give one vote in the presidential elections to each person as a baseline and then one additional vote for every $10,000 in federal taxes they paid in the preceding four years. That should even things out a bit.
“Dan, why not take your theories all the way, then? What would be your principled disagreement to having the government seize everybody’s earnings, divide the total by the population and send out even-steven checks?”
Sorry to disappoint you, but I don’t hide under the covers at night reading my concealed copies of Karl Marx. He makes as much sense as Keynes and Hayek. You might want to respond to what I actually wrote and to the concerns I actually expressed. But to answer your question: no. For the simple reason that the government already seizes my earnings and pays it out in huge subsidies to people making far more than I could ever dream of making. But please, read what I wrote and respond to that.
Reactionary considers me terminally stupid – excuse me, invincibly ignorant. So be it. Unfortunately, I am even less convinced by his name-calling than by his “argument”.
I read reactionary’s concern as a moral one. That being, that (regardless of what long-term economic projections say) taxing people of wealth at a greater level than the impoverished is the right thing to do from an equity standpoint (i.e. fairness). The argument here is that since this society (collectively) has provided the wealthy with the opportunity to become fat-cats, the fat-cats should owe a larger percentage back to society than others. The others being individuals whom because of (collective) discrimination (social, racial, gender, etc.) have failed to meritocratically achieve what the largely protestant/white male business exec has.
I’ve floated the trial balloon–You can shoot it down now.
Dan and Nate,
In the free market, people amass wealth by meeting consumer demand. Their “debt” to society has been paid. I have already expressed my disagreement with the inflation associated with public deficit spending as benefitting upstream recipients of the new dollars at the expense of downstream recipients.
Dan,
What is your beef with Hayek? And since you dismiss Keynes and Marx as well, I think your bitterness is with the iron laws of economics themselves.
#17–So everyone has the same debt to society? Mine is not greater than yours?
Dan – though I consider some of what you wrote to be over the top, I share the same concerns. On the other hand, I understand you to be supporting the idea of forced wealth redistribution – and, make no mistake, that’s what our tax system is – which prompted my question of, implicitly, where you draw the line.
I consider such a system to be irrelevant to Christian compassion. What would be relevant would be any of us, as individuals, sending our IRS checks to the people with the financial crises you mention. But, as it is, when the government serves as the intermediary, the question of our Christian duty vanishes.
Why do you not trust the American people to do the right thing, without coercion? Private charity can be as effective as public.
I never cease to be amazed at the gospel-free zone that seems to overtake this blog as soon as the talk turns to money and markets. Did Jesus really just intend some vaguely edifying spiritual point when he talked about the eye of the needle?
Phil #19, you make a good point. Good tax policy is always redistributive in some fashion. It may redistribute the money up or down the economic ladder–Or It may redistribute it to big government run programs like the interstate highway system, or medicare/medicaid…Taxes always redistribute.
#20-I’ve always blithely assumed that Jesus was a free-market capitalist…Seriously, it does seem inconsistent to attempt to bring gospel values to bear on things like homosexual marriage, while saying that gospel values don’t apply on things like taxation.
I believe one can be Christian and giving without believing that we need to be taxed into oblivion. Some seem to equate giving money to the government as doing something Godly. Christian charity comes from the heart and is demonstrated by our individual actions. I do not feel compelled to let the government make my charitable decisions for me.
#20, as taxation removes individual will, I actualy think it’s a negative at it removes scope to choose to do good. It supports the idea that if there is a problem, the nebulous “government” should fix it, instead of working to fix it yourself through your own deeds. I’m not calling for the end of government, don’t get me wrong, but I think the two poles of government action and private action need to exist in tension (I hate using that word now. . .) in order to maximize the benefits both to society and individuals. I could express this better but I’m trying to get out of here on time on a Friday afternoon.
#13, US deflation could be good for China in making Chinese imports cheaper in the US, but the resultant economic turmoil could hurt them more than it helped by cutting deman. Better to keep their own currency artificially cheap. They are taking a page from Japan’s book.
Iran has actualy worked to create higher inflation, part of why we redesigned all our money a few years ago was due to Iranian counterfeiting operations which aimed both to help the Iranian regime by giving them free money, and hurt us through unplanned inflation.
Nate,
The only obligation you owe to “society” is not to offload costs on others. You see how progressive taxation and government regulation becomes problematic very quickly.
Andrew,
We are not experiencing inflation because of counterfeit c-notes from Iran. We are experiencing inflation because of our own fiscal irresponsibility.
Reac, I never said we were. Only that Iran saw that (marginal increase in inflation) as a useful add-on to the benefit they recieved from printing $100 bills to use for their own purpsoes, like funding Hamas. Nate had specificaly asked about China and Iran and deflation, so I mentioned it.
I agree that the bulk of our inflation comes from our own defecit spending. Where we differ is I don’t think the gold standard is a viable solution. That’s a whole other debate, which we’ve had before and we’re not gonna convice the other, so no need clogging this thread with it. We are in broad agreement so far in this thread, I think.
Tragomylos, “I never cease to be amazed at the gospel-free zone that seems to overtake this blog as soon as the talk turns to money and markets. Did Jesus really just intend some vaguely edifying spiritual point when he talked about the eye of the needle?”
Have you no concept of nuance and validation? Has the ECUSA/TEC approach to Scripture taught you nothing? Why should your private opinions regarding what Jesus meant have any validity other than that which you ascrible to them? Are you implying that there are metanarratives within the Scripture which must be obeyed? Do you not welcome diversity of opinion on matters economic? Hasn’t the Jesus Seminar debunked most of your cherished imaginary beliefs? Why should modern and postmodern persons be held to your archaic conceptualizations? Have you not heard of the “anti-tax” gene and the inborn nature of opposing regressive behaviours of governments based on unenlightened presuppositions?
/sarcasm
Why is it only what Jesus said about money that matters, Trog?
What always jumps out in threads like these is each side avoiding the log in its own eye. From the point of view of the “rich,” by which is meant here, those earning high salaries, they are unhappy about being told that they don’t “give back enough to society,” when they are being taxed at 33% or more. People with trust funds, foundations, and so on, can get away without the taxes, but people on salary pay. It’s probably quite true that many such could give more in charitable donations, and to organizations that actually help the poor rather than building a new art museum or something (there’s the log in the “rich” eye), but how much tax is enough? The log seldom acknowledged in the “poor” eye is the Tenth Commandment. Are all “poor” people in that situation because “rich” people earn too much? Why is it unjust to think of higher-salaried people keeping 66% of their salaries? Would the complaints cease if they lost 50%?
Dan Crawford: WOW! GREAT JOB!!! Those of us who are close to working folks know that something is very, very wrong, and that workers in the US continue to lose ground. And #28, Katherine, you nailed it! Thanks!
One of the big problems with the progressive tax is that it actually hurts many working families. I know people who refuse over time or limit over time work because it bumps them into a higher bracket and they have to work many more hours to get even. I think the fair tax could solve manyu of the current inequities in our tax system. The other thing not mentioned is that people rarely go to poor people to ask for jobs.
#30-yeah, and wealthy folks are rarely willing / able to do everything required to turn a profit by themselves. Regarding your first statement that the progressive income tax hurts the working class–David Stockman (Reagan’s director of OMB) said the exact same thing in 1980–We’ve seen a downward trend in real middle-class wages ever since the federal government decided to resurrect the 19th century idea of “trickle down” after the 1980 election.
#25–I guess if my only obligation is to be productive, then it shouldn’t bother me to work two jobs and still not have health care or enough to make ends meet. It WOULD bother me though. Who is going to even out that inequality? I know, no one should because that’s my lot in life (and it’s bad tax policy). Go ahead and go on past reactionary– I’ll wait for the Samaritan.
Nate, it’s more like “we’ve seen a downward trend in real middle class wages since the rest of the developed world recovered from WW2 and the US no longer represents 50% of global GDP.” The downward trend started good bit before Reagan. US wages had tended to be high due to labor shortages in the 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries. That’s how we could absorb/attract the “huddled masses yearning to make 50% more than they make at home.” Then in the 20th century the rest of the world’s industrial plant got bombed to oblivion. In the late 60s/early 70s the European and Japanese economies recovered and began to compete fully once more. And real wages here began to decline due to competition combined with the inflationary policies brought about to defend the free world from communism, while at the same time pouring money into social programs at home which have been quite successful at maintaining poverty, even spreading it.
When politicians say they want to fund any new thing by taxing “the rich”, they really mean [i] you. [/i] This is because the quantities of revenue required are so enormous, there really aren’t enough rich people out there to fund them, even were they taxed at 100%. (And once you tax them at 100%, consider that next year they just might not have produced any income for you to confiscate). So if you make $40,000 a year, you, my friend, are [i] rich. [/i]
A Christian must remember that greed (which drives capitalism) and envy (the animating spirit behind socialism) are both deadly sins. If with intemperate zeal we seek to punish the greedy, we ourselves might be falling into envy. And vice-versa.
Nate your class envy is showing. I worked in a machine shop with the owner (who eventually became wealthy). He started in his basement with a lathe ( he barrowed the money from his mom for th lathe) and believe me when I say he did everything any body else did and more. Many wealthy people I know and know of did the samething. I really don’t understand your point. If your a Ted Kennedy and have your wealth in trusts in Tihite maybe your right, but Teddy Boy doesn’t pay taxes.
It would be nice to see people interacting with the actual arguments of Joiner, Drum, and Caron rather than simply injecting their own talking points.
“Kevin Drum, though weary from constantly having to point this out, notes that these calculations only include federal income tax and that, when one considers Social Security (aka “payrollâ€) taxes, things suddenly flatten out. Indeed, the tax burden becomes curvilinear, with “the 5,000 richest people in the country†paying less than those making $100,000. Further, if one includes excise taxes, state income taxes, sales taxes, or property taxes, the system is flatter yet, with those in the top and bottom quintile actually paying a slightly higher share of their incomes than those in the middle.”
This is a discussion of tax policy, which has little to do with generosity or biblical principals – concerning how I spend the resources that I have. Jesus was clear – give to ceasar what is ceasar’s and give to God what is God’s. It is a mistaken concept that we should legislate that people be generous as a “kingdom principal”. However, if the people (Ceasar) decide to be generous, then it is our responsibility to comply with the law. It is not a moral failing to disagree with a certain government policy. Though we can be called to take action about areas we think need attention.
The mistake of Christians is that over time, they abdicated the responsiblity of the church to care for people and allowed the governments to take on that burden. So now people can be less generous and claim that their taxes support a higer level of generosity.
For the retirement system, the current system is a “pay as you go” operation. It is a transfer of wealth from the current working generation to the former generation. The disparity in the current system is that Public employees do not pay into the system (nor possibly some clergy). It is a 15% contribition – shared by the employee and employer, and is capped at $90,000 (the tax). The benefit is also capped. Since much of the fund is used for government operations beyond retirement spending, it creates an inequity in the system to have many people benefit from the excess in collections, while not having contributed to the system.
In my experience as a private sector employee, having paid this FICA tax all of my working life, my teacher friends (who have not paid this) complain that my tax rate might be too low, but forget that I am paying for their parent’s retirement and they are not. A clergy friend just took a private sector job and was shocked by the amount of taxes taken out of his pay check (before he had none, but his pay was much lower).
The inequitiy of the tax system seems to be argued from the practical vew – tax the rich less and they will generate more economic activity and revenue. To the “Tax the Rich” more since there are so many more people who need assistance. These two arguements never intersect each other while people in the middle get squeezed, meanwhile being asked to give more and more of what they have less and less of.