LIKE & SHARE - if you agree with JFK's statement... How is it, that 50 years later, Kennedy's inaugural speech is still unmatched in it's vision and motivational power?
Me: "A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget. Every taxpayer and his family will have more money left over after taxes for a new car, a new home, new conveniences, education and investment. Every businessman can keep a higher percentage of his profits in his cash register or put it to work expanding or improving his business, and as the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues."
– John F. Kennedy, Sept. 18, 1963, radio and television address to the nation on tax-reduction bill
S.B.: Yep. And you know what the top marginal tax rate was in 1963 when JFK said that?
that's right: 91%. So the wealthiest Americans paid a 91% tax on the last dollars of their income. And yet, those were prosperous times, with a lot of people coming into the middle class for the first time. We built our interstate highway system, sent a man to the moon....
What is it today? 33%. Lower than it was than during the Clinton era, where again, the economy prospered.
Just filling in the rest of the story for you, Rich.
Me: In the early sixties, the top 1% paid 27% of all personal income taxes. Now, it is 37%.
Just filing in the rest of the story for you, Scott.
S.B.: From Wikipedia: "According to the Congressional Budget Office, between 1979 and 2007 incomes of the top 1% of Americans grew by an average of 275%. During the same time period, the 60% of Americans in the middle of the income scale saw the...ir income rise by 40%. Since 1979 the average pre-tax income for the bottom 90% of households has decreased by $900, while that of the top 1% increased by over $700,000, as federal taxation became less progressive. From 1992-2007 the top 400 income earners in the U.S. saw their income increase 392% and their average tax rate reduced by 37%.[13] In 2009, the average income of the top 1% was $960,000 with a minimum income of $343,927"
Pardon me if I have a hard time believing that our current tax policies punish the wealthy. If that's punishment, then punish me, please!
Me: Good for them, and they are paying more taxes as a result. Doesn't change the fact the Kennedy advocated tax cuts as a means for economic growth.
I did not claim that our current tax policies punish the wealthy.
J.M.: Tax cuts can be good for the economy under the correct economic circumstances. Additionally, tax rates should be adjusted down or up accordingly. And within a properly regulated environment it works. But when loose regulations and low tax rates allow wealth to accumulate to a smaller and smaller percentage of the population the ability to be flexible becomes more difficult. And keep in mind that the middle class shared far more of that wealth in Kennedy's time. This is something the Norquista's can't wrap their heads around because it contradicts their flawed ideology that somehow the free market will correct itself. As we have seen over the past 3 decades, that hasn't worked. Call it trickle down or voodoo economics or whatever they want to call it today... it's the same thing.
Me: J.M., your whole presentation is premised on the assumption that the government possesses the ability to discern, manipulate, and then properly implement tax changes that will yield desired societal outcomes, or at least, outcomes that agree with your social engineering preferences.
However, there is no evidence whatsoever that such manipulations have done anything except harm the economy. The "experts" have failed every time.
Fact is, this country is teetering on the brink because of the very techniques you advocate.
And by the way, your condescending remarks are uncivil and unwarranted. I request that you make your case, if you have one, without the insinuations that people like me are stupid.
J.M.: Rich, this is something I like to call "Social Memory Lapse". You actually cited a great example (JFK) earlier, and then repeated the oft heard argument that government is incapable of implementing desired and fair outcomes. I'm not trying to pick a fight but it should be pretty clear using that example that government can and does a good job of taxing and regulating where needed. I would say it's gotten much more difficult in this current political environment due to the tossing about of terms like "social engineering".
J.M.: For example: Christmas is social engineering. A created for masses holiday and not actually rooted in Christianity. We've adopted it as one and jolly good and fine with me. But that is social engineering. Government is about protecting and promoting a society. If you and I only had the experience of not having a government we all might appreciate the good it does. Even when we perceive parts of it as wrong.
J.M.: And lastly, I was never at any point condescending. Simply being matter of fact. I've re-read my posts and can't find anything that would warrant that remark. Cheers and Happy Holidays!
Me:
1) JFK was not advocating the continual manipulation of economics, he wanted an across the board tax cut as a means of spurring economic activity and increasing revenues to the government. Trickle down.
2) Social engineering is an accurate term. The fact that you bristle at its use is unfortunate, but if you have a better term that describes government meddling in the economy, I'll consider using it.
3) Agreed about Christmas. There should be no governmental favor extended to it.
4) "Not having a government" vs. "good government" is a false binary equation. I did not advocate no government. In fact, please point out a national figure who has, or retract your statement.
5) You wrote, "This is something the Norquista's can't wrap their heads around..." Norquista suggests a mind-numbed follower of Norquist, which is first the introduction of an irrelevant tangent, and second it is coupled with a dismissive tag, "...can't get their heads around..." In other words, they're (or I'm) too stupid to understand your nuanced, clever positions.
That is condescending and insulting. But you knew that.
J.M.: Again on JFK and connecting it to my first post. Under the correct economic circumstances. Trickle down cannot be argued in that context as it can in today's.
J.M.: As for 2, it's simply not the same thing. We disagree.
As for 3, LOL... indeed. But we all can enjoy the time with family for the better at least.
As for 4, I'm merely pointing out one extreme to another and I'll leave the center of that argument for anyone's interpretative assumptions. My libertarian streak would rather less governing law in some areas and more in others were stark inequality and injustice exist.
As for 5, had I known your fondness for Grover, I might have been more gentle. I find the man wanting and have seen him continually stumble in the face of facts and return to unsupported arguments in his own defense which suggests he is less interested in how things actually work, and more interested in an ideology. It's not to say everything he promotes is a bad idea (corn subsidies is a good example), its just that the foundation of his beliefs are flawed. And the folks that are nodding their heads with him I fear are not really catching on to that and find it easier to accept the black and white view he is selling instead of thoughtfully evaluating what he is saying and shaping the message towards good public policy. And I think that shapes the rights view of Obama supporters as one way or the other when many of us disagree with him on fundamental issues. But I don't find Obama as cast in stone as Grover by any means. Far more flexible in my opinion. Perhaps too much in some areas, and not enough in others. That seems to be in stark contrast to those who follow Norquist.
So no, I didn't know that. How could I? I don't know you.
Me: No, you don't know me, but you assumed I held Norquist in high regard. In actual fact, I don't.
Which means you draw conclusions about people based on stereotypes, which explains why you are unable to understand what I am writing.
We all have these lenses that we filter data through. I'll leave it to you to sort out your own, as I will mine. In the meantime, we might wish to re-read each others' posts to ascertain what was actually being said.
J.P.: I know everyone likes the rage, but reality is revealed in a simple observation. That observation is not about Democrat or Republican, but rather conservative vs. progressive. The question is when did America (the United States to be precise) rise to great power status and why? Was it the result of conservative stand pat or progressive political ideology? Unless one engages in extraordinary revisionism and self deception, progressive policy led to great power status. Conservatism sought to maintain (by nature conservatism leads nowhere, since it seeks to maintain what is) what is: social inequity of all kinds -- take your pick. Institutionalized plutocracy, sexism, racism, imperialism, and religious orthodoxy. The Republicans that have made the difference (and a large one) were progressives. They overthrew orthodoxys such as slavery, monopolistic unregulated capitalism and the cold war as a never ending institutionalized conflict. When a Republican has a new idea, I'll consider voting for one, not before.
Me: Progressives progress? Tautology.
No comments:
Post a Comment