SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home What Do Economic And Social Liberalism Have In Common?

JONATHAN CHAIT DECEMBER 28, 2010

What Do Economic And Social Liberalism Have In Common?

BY JONATHAN CHAIT

Chris Beam's interesting New York essay on libertarianism notes as an aside:

Libertarianism is more internally consistent than the Democratic or Republican platforms. There’s no inherent reason that free-marketers and social conservatives should be allied under the Republican umbrella, except that it makes for a powerful coalition.

Matthew Yglesias replies that, in practice, the division works reasonably well:

We should consider the possibility that the market in political ideas works is that there’s a reason you typically find conservative and progressive political coalitions aligned in this particular way. And if you look at American history, you see that in 1964 when we had a libertarian presidential candidate the main constituency for his views turned out to be white supremacists in the deep south. Libertarian principles, as Rand Paul had occasion to remind us during the 2010 midterm campaign, prohibit the Civil Rights Act as an infringement on the liberty of racist business proprietors. Similarly, libertarians and social conservatives are united in opposition to an Employment Non-Discrimination Act for gays and lesbians and to measures like the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act that seek to curb discrimination against women.

Let me refine the point a bit. The left-right division tends to center around the distribution of power. In both the economic and the social spheres, power is distributed unequally. Liberalism is about distributing that power more equally, and conservatism represents the opposite. I don't mean to create a definition that stacks the deck. It's certainly possible to carry the spirit of egalitarianism too far in either sphere. An economic policy that imposed a 100% tax on all six-figure incomes, or a social policy that imposed strict race and gender quotas on every university or profession, would be far too egalitarian for my taste. Soviet Russia or Communist China are handy historical cases of social and economic leveling run amok.

But in any case, there's a coherence between the two spheres. Liberals see a health care system in which tens millions of people can't afford regular medical care, or a social system in which gays face an array of discrimination, and seek to level the playing field. The inequality may be between management and labor, or rich and poor, or corporations versus consumers, or white versus black. In almost every instance, the liberal position is for reducing inequalities of power -- be it by ending Jim Crow or providing food stamps to poor families -- while the conservative position is for maintaining those inequalities of power.

Economic liberalism usually (but not always) takes the form of advocating more government intervention, while social liberalism usually (but not always) takes the form of advocating less government intervention. If your only ideological interpretation metric is more versus less government, then that would appear incoherent. But I don't see why more versus less government must be the only metric.

The one area where I think the liberal and conservative coalitions truly do not fit is foreign policy. I don't see any natural reason why the right should be more hawkish and the left more dovish. It's true that military expenditures compete with social programs for resources, but they also force higher taxes. Wars generally cause liberals to make the same kinds of arguments about futility and unintended consequences that conservatives make about social programs, while the reverse is true for conservatives. If you rearrange some key nouns, a Nation editorial on Iraq could be turned into a Weekly Standard editorial on health care reform, and a Weekly Standard editorial on Iraq could be turned into a Nation editorial on health care reform.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 97 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

97 comments

Good points. I guess I'm a moderate, because I see Economic Liberalism as imposing just enough Government oversight to maintain a level playing field -- and no more. Thus "more Government intervention" is not always the inevitable goal or result. I think this is muddied by Conservative claims that "more intervention" IS the goal of liberals, which they use to justify removing regulation whenever they get the chance. This makes a natural alliance between "no-regulation" free-marketeers, and "no-rules" libertarians -- if you bend the meaning of "libertarian" a little. But by inappropriately removing regulation (as in Enron, the Savings and Loan crisis, and the CDO crisis), the resulting disaster should justify putting regulation back in place. But again, just enough regulation.

- AllanL5

December 28, 2010 at 10:35am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Your comment is very fine, Allan.

- liberal reformer

December 28, 2010 at 10:53am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Your post fails on several points. First, economic "conservatism" as currently understood is actually 19th century bourgeois liberalism, which favored a society as free of government constraint as possible, whether such constraint was economic or social. It was 19th century conservatism that favored government control, or at least support, of social institutions and economic power. It is the economic vortex of the early 20th century, together with wars that profoundly altered the political calculus of nations, that created the current alignments. There is no inherent reason why they could not revert to earlier patterns. Liberals see a health care system in which tens millions of people can't afford regular medical care, or a social system in which gays face an array of discrimination, and seek to level the playing field. This assumes, of course, that "gay" is a condition comparable to race or gender. I am aware that most people who call themselves "liberal" see it that way and favor government power to equalize social relations. However, that still requires a prior assumption that is neither particularly liberal or conservative. For that matter, it is not an accident that there has been, and remains, a small but persistent minority within liberalism opposed to abortion, since that too depends on a prior assumption that is not necessarily left or right. It is not a coincidence that one of the strongest forces for racial justice was religion, and one of the main supporters of universal health care (at least in principle) has been the catholic church. Economic liberalism usually (but not always) takes the form of advocating more government intervention, while social liberalism usually (but not always) takes the form of advocating less government intervention. Excuse me? The only possible way you can say that social liberalism usually advocates less government intervention is if you assume that the main focus of social liberalism is either abortion and the autonomy of a pregnant woman or bedroom privacy in respect of sexual relations--and these are both dubious assumptions.

- timteeter

December 28, 2010 at 11:01am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Fix your *&^% software! I closed those italics! I'll stick to quotation marks from now on.

- timteeter

December 28, 2010 at 11:02am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think Allan is a classic economic liberal, although his definition also meets my definition of an economic moderate. The conservative caricature of a liberal as one who values government regulation as an end in itself has no basis in reality. Rather, it is simply a straw man to rhetorically knock down to serve the interests of the rich, corporations, and management in eliminating government as a means of rationally limiting that power. I think rational thinkers like JC go astray in trying to reconcile the inconsistencies in the conservative movement because they assume a rational thought process. I think it more of a tribal mentality. This is alien to liberals because we address issues on their merits rather than on our emotional response. Conservatives are much more likely to simply accept the world view of their tribal leaders than are liberals.

- spd1955

December 28, 2010 at 11:16am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sometimes Chait seems to view taxation as a liberal goal, independent of what the taxes may be used for to achieve liberal ends (universal health care, for example): "It's true that military expenditures compete with social programs for resources, but they also force higher taxes." I can assure Chait that liberals do not view taxation as a liberal goal, but rather as a means to an end. As for the method of taxation, it's true that most liberals do favor progressivity, but that's simply a matter of fairness (or equity, the term I prefer); those who have more can afford more. Anybody who favors taxation as a means of redistributing wealth is not a liberal; he is a thief.

- rayward

December 28, 2010 at 11:24am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

rayward, I favor taxation as a means of redistributing wealth, and I'm a liberal.

- timteeter

December 28, 2010 at 11:51am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What SPD said!!!

- MikeB.

December 28, 2010 at 12:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think it is somewhat a wild goose chase to find consistency in modern day conservativism: "GET YOUR NO GOOD GOVERNMENT HANDS OUT OF MY MEDICARE!!!" The tribal thing makes some of the poorest white voters in places like central Pennsylvania or Western Virginia vote for the GOP. When asked specifically their economic views don't differ from VT liberals, but darnit they won't vote for socialist elitists!!!

- MikeB.

December 28, 2010 at 12:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

- jet

December 28, 2010 at 12:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

End italics test.

- jet

December 28, 2010 at 12:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Liberalism is about distributing that power more equally, and conservatism represents the opposite." I'd put it this way: conservatives want an aristocracy, liberals don't.

- mmathog

December 28, 2010 at 2:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

mmathog's definition works for me. Libertarians are aligned with conservatives because conservatives well understand that, absent government to balance and limit the power of money, rigid aristocracy is the inevitable result. Thus, they easily play to the libertarian dogma that demands virtually no government at all. I don't take the libertarians at face value though. Scratch a little bit, and you find out that they are not as unaware of or indifferent to the outcome as they claim to be and are perfectly willing to use force to maintain the system as they like it. They are conservatives who are willing to extend their market extremism to social as well as economic behavior. That's about it.

- roidubouloi

December 28, 2010 at 2:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Having many friends who are arch social conservatives with libertarian economic views, I can understand why Mr. Chait might try to find some sort of connection. His argument sounds more like the right wing commentators trying to understand Barak Obama by asserting that he is a Kenyan anti colonialist. Mr. Chait’s surmise is no more useful. One finds allies where one can. Even the ACLJ and the ACLU sometimes join together in litigation. There is no philosophical or Biblical reason to connect social conservatism with libertarianism. Some of my friends have published books attempting to make this connection. I do not agree with their arguments, but we still agree on Christian Doctrine, if not always on practice.

- sdmcleod

December 28, 2010 at 3:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Liberalism, as espoused by Chait and the denizens of this blog, is an opiate designed to sooth the pain of parasitic and pathetic human beings who have nothing to offer, e.g... Liberalism, which claims only to want an 'equality' in end results, hates the exceptional man who, through his own mental effort, achieves that which others cannot... In an attempt to 'dumb down' all students to the lowest common denominator, today's educators no longer promote excellence and students of superior ability... Imagine the following Academy Award ceremony. There are no awards for best picture or best actor. Instead, every picture gets a certificate and every actor receives a prize. That is not an awards ceremony, you say? So it isn't. But it is an liberal's dream -- and an achiever's torment. Talent and ability create inequality... To rectify this supposed injustice, we are told to sacrifice the able to the unable. Liberalism demands the punishment and envy of anyone who is better than someone else at anything. We must tear down the competent and the strong -- raze them to the level of the incompetent and the weak... What would happen to a Thomas Edison today? If he survived school with his mind intact, he would be shackled by government regulators. His wealth would be confiscated by the IRS. He would be accused of 'unfair competition' for inventing so many more products than his competitors Liberals everywhere continue to be the enemy of the talented, productive and innovative. This is why their biggest supporters are public sector unions and trial lawyers. But you can repent this self-destructive belief system. Create value. Offer something to the world. Be free.

- mr_rationale

December 28, 2010 at 3:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

mr_r: "Liberalism, which claims only to want an 'equality' in end results...." You can't have a discussion with someone whose premise is so obviously incorrect. I'd go into more detail, but really it should be so clear to begin with that any further attempt is almost certainly futile. By the way, if you're going to just cut-and-paste, you should at least provide a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egalitarianism. And one shouldn't mindlessly substitute liberalism for egalitarianism, which was done in the above excerpt. There is a big difference between the two, such distinctions are lost among the ideologues.

- dsimon

December 28, 2010 at 4:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

rayward: "Anybody who favors taxation as a means of redistributing wealth is not a liberal; he is a thief." The argument that taxation for redistribution purposes is theft is not an argument against this particular type of tax but rather an argument against taxation itself. In truth, all taxes are redistributive to an extent - some people get more benefit from government services than others. For instance, the portion of our taxes that goes to police protection skews to the benefit of the upper classes because they own more property and thus need more protection for the same. This is true for fire departments, transportation system maintenance and the legal system, though not necessarily in the same ways. In short, the wealthy gain more from the established system than the poor in most cases and this is the rationale for a progressive tax scheme as well as economic programs that benefit the poor, both of which are inherently redistributive. Is this theft? I think not. Rather, it is an acknowledgment and remedy to the fact that that capitalism, almost by definition, produces inequalities that, if left unchecked, would transform our nation into an aristocracy within a matter of decades. It is practical. But it is also moral in that those who enjoy greater privilege also shoulder a greater responsibility for maintenance of the system that has been so good to them. One cannot seriously argue otherwise, though I've seen it done. "Ah," you might say, "our taxation system is proportional and not nominal so a flat tax would be fair by this standard." Not so. I am an economist by training and money, as with the vast majority of material goods, adheres to the law of diminishing marginal utility which states that it becomes less valuable to an individual the more you have of it, and vice versa. Consider the value of an extra dollar to someone who is starving against the value of that same dollar to someone who has millions of them. To the former, it can mean another day on this earth whereas to the latter it's something that could be easily discarded. Thus, even though the upper classes would pay more nominally under a flat tax, they are still not parting with the same proportion in an effective sense. Is it moral to deny someone what would mean so much to them when you have little use for it by comparison? In a very real sense, taxation for redistributive aims is far from theft. It is only fair.

- NR857175

December 28, 2010 at 4:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

mr. -r., The Academy Awards? You chose Hollywood--Hollywood??!!--to illustrate how liberalism tears down the creative in an effort to create an equality of outcome? Have you actually considered or checked out the general political coloring of most denizens of movieland? Say, to which party most of their political contributions go, etc? Because I'm pretty sure Tom Hanks would think you just made a fool of yourself.

- timteeter

December 28, 2010 at 5:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

From Mill to Rawls, how does one define liberal? Though I consider myself very much an economic liberal (social liberal, not so much), by the standard popular here I am a neo-liberal. If I believed that our economic system produced a morally indefensible result (so indefensible, in fact, that it requires a re-distribution), I would support a different system; one cannot simultaneously support an economic system because it's the most productive and a re-distribution of its spoils. Not only is it hypocrisy, the system would be inherently unsustainable. I support our system, but recognize that it isn't perfect, and requires government intervention, from regulation of economic activities to support of certain universally-accepted public services (from education to health care). And to fund that government intervention, I support an equitable system of taxation, which means a progressive system, imposing a higher rate on those most able to pay. As I have made clear in many comments, the US tax system is far from progressive, with essentially a flat marginal rate tax system ( the highest marginal rates are actually imposed on those with middle incomes), and an effective tax rate system that is progressive only between the middle and upper middle quintiles but not progressive at all between the middle quintiles and the very top quintiles; indeed, the effective tax rate for the middle quintiles has been flat for the past 50 years but has dropped precipitously for the top quintiles. Promoting a re-distributive tax system not only defies actual experience, but I believe is counter-productive (and a reason why our tax system has become less progressive in the past 50 years). I am a liberal. A practical liberal.

- rayward

December 28, 2010 at 6:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

dsimon - try to read the article. It is Chait who uses egalitarianism to define liberalism timteeter -- you get the point don't you. It is ridiculous to believe in equality of outcomes even in hollywood -- a principle that Chait's argument hinges upon. His 'leveling' is the same as ensuring equality of outcomes. And egalitarianism is useful to understand a crucial difference between liberals and conservatives Conservatives believe in equality of opportunity. Liberals in equality of outcomes. Unfortuneately for liberals, U.S. built on equality of opportunity and capitalism. Socialism works much better for equality of outcomes.

- mr_rationale

December 28, 2010 at 8:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

NR857175: You must work in the public sector. Your assertion that the wealthy benefit more from Gov services than poor is wrong. (benefit = net benefit = benefit - cost) Let take public schools. Wealthy pay 95% of property taxes yet send large portion of kids to private schools. Poor pay almost nothing for public education. Or police. Again the property tax example. And the wealthy need police much less than poor. Even you know the correlation with crime rates. Police don't spend majority of time protecting property -- they spend time fighting crime. Even you must know this. Lets be honest -- Gov services benefit public sector parasites most of all. Like you.

- mr_rationale

December 28, 2010 at 8:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

mr rationed-brains, thanks for all of the wonderful strawmen, and your deft exhibition on knocking them down. Delightful. But back in the real world, where most of us hang out, egalitarians and liberals are signficantly different.

The Civil Rights Act was "liberal", not "egalitarian", unless you want to play games with the definitions of "outcome" and "opportunity" and "equality". I mean, I could see the argument, since the "outcome" of the Civil Rights Act was "equal opportunity" for blacks. Oddly, I've never heard a liberal complain about the Civil Rights Act, even to say it hasn't gone far enough, only conservatives, and always complaining that it overreaches or is unnecessary. I wonder why that is?

I call BS on your public education numbers; I've seen public schools that shame private schools, and the students' lot was packed with $50k+ vehicles (beaters and hoopties in the teachers' lot of course). Besides, wanting to send one's child to a private school does not absolve one from having to pay their locality's taxes; they can tax their residents however they see fit, and spend it however they like.

Sadly, not only have you not made much of a case for who benefits more from government services, you haven't accounted for the opportunity which government provides you to become the next bill gates or warren buffet. Two of the three richest men in the world are American, and did it under the same rules you seem to think are so oppressive. But, like with SeattleEnglishMajor, it's painfully obvious with you that the verdict against the public sector parasites is in, and you're ready for a good, old-fashioned hangin'; it's all about you and your money, and how you can keep it all to yourself.

- GSpinks

December 28, 2010 at 9:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

mr_r, Yes, I got your point. You apparently completely failed to see mine, which is the rather rich irony in choosing Hollywood as the setting of your thought experiment (if it can be dignified as such). Where do you suppose a significant chunk of those wealthy achievers you so admire for paying all those taxes live, and for whom do you suppose they vote? As for Chait and egalitarian leveling, this only shows that you have completely failed to "get" Mr. Chait, a man who actually seriously considered the Bowles-Simpson proposal before coming to his senses. Radical egalitarian he is not. Nor am I. I'm a liberal, but I don't, in fact, believe in an equality of outcomes, and I dare say not a single person who posts on this blog does, either. I leave it to others to shoot some more fish is this barrel, if they think it's worth the candle. Probably not.

- timteeter

December 28, 2010 at 9:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

mr_r: "dsimon - try to read the article. It is Chait who uses egalitarianism to define liberalism" Nowhere does Chait say that liberalism is equivalent to egalitarianism; he claims only that liberalism generally tries to counteract undue concentration of power, not that power or outcomes must be equal. Perhaps you should read the article for what it is instead of what you would like it to be? And whatever is in the original article does not excuse your substitution of the two in an otherwise verbatim cut-and-paste excerpt (which is consequently misleading as to what the original writer actually wrote), nor your failure to provide proper attribution (which would be plagiarism in most circles). "Conservatives believe in equality of opportunity. Liberals in equality of outcomes." That is completely false. I'm a liberal who does not demand equality of outcomes, and I think most liberals would agree with me (as some in this thread already have). And as far as equality of opportunity goes, I don't see conservatives clamoring to provide the same education in low-income areas that the wealthy get. So again, your premises are just wrong, and clearly wrong at that.

- dsimon

December 28, 2010 at 10:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Actually, Rationale, I work for a Fortune 500 company in a management position. I've never worked in the public sector or for a non-profit. You're correct in that public education *directly* benefits the poor and middle classes more than the wealthy. Yet, those who own and manage the means of production benefit from this in other, less direct ways. You shouldn't hire a cashier who can't add. You'd be a fool to hire an administrative assistant who can't draft an email. Et cetera. I won't say that public education, specifically, benefits the wealthy more than the lower classes because this is one of the few instances in which it's probably the reverse but it's not a total wash, especially since, as you mention, not all rich people send their children to a private school. Moreover, since property taxes pay for public education, the more affluent an area is, the more school funding they get. Hence our decrepit inner-city schools and near-top-notch ones in the suburbs. This is a major mitigating factor to the downward redistributive effect since the wealthy are generally not paying for poor children to be educated but, rather, their own. As to your police example, there are two classes of crime: violent crime and property crime. It is true that violent crime victims are dominated by the poor but, since violent crime is far, far less prevalent than property crime, the police spend much more time pursuing property crime even though it is a less serious offense. Compare property crime in 1993 (about 5,000 per 100,000 pop) versus violent crime in the same year (about 1333 per 100,000 pop) for the entire United States. There is no reasonable argument about where the bulk of police funding goes, simply based on these rough numbers. The only areas in which this *might* be reversed is in some small sections of the inner cities. I see you carefully avoided the fire department, transportation and legal system examples. These services benefit the wealthy even more unevenly than police protection so I can understand your aversion.

- NR857175

December 29, 2010 at 10:57am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

NR, you will have a tough time making a case that the wealthy receive services valued anywhere near what they pay in taxes. A city of 100K will have a budget of around $100M, and a fire department budget of around $3M, or 3% Police will run much higher than that: about 20%. Wealthy people don't need the police very often. When they do, it's usually to protect them from an, uh, unwealthy person. Fire services are more uniformly required, but again, the wealthy person is paying more each year for his fire service (since he owns more property). So, if the wealthy person and the poor person both call for help because they fell off the roof, then the wealthy person is subsidizing the poor person in that case. If the wealthy person is calling the fire department to put out a fire in his 100 room mansion, then I'd still argue the wealthy person has paid far more in taxes than are needed to put out that once-in-a-lifetime event.

- seattleeng

December 29, 2010 at 1:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Chait writes: "Liberals see a health care system in which tens millions of people can't afford regular medical care, or a social system in which gays face an array of discrimination, and seek to level the playing field. " Actually, I have not yet met a republican that believes folks that cannot afford health care should do without. But I have met a host of folks here on TNR that believe a poor person should have most all the "stuff" that a wealthy person has. But incredibly, they don't extend that same courtesy to those outside our borders. But the key word in the first sentence I typed is AFFORD. If they have prioritized a computer, a new car (or two?) every 5 years, a cell phone, cable TV and internet access over health care, dinner out once a week, is it true that they cannot really afford health care? When we hear that dems want to increase the limit on SCHIP up to $80,000 what else could it mean? Chait takes the easy way out here and sets up a straw man, but in doing so he really misses the fundamental difference between right and left. The left is overwhelmingly focused on redistribution via whatever means possible...

- seattleeng

December 29, 2010 at 1:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

seattleeng, you need to get out more. In today's world, having a phone (cell or otherwise), computer, functioning car, and internet access (though maybe not cable) are becoming essential to holding, or even aspiring to, a decent paying job. It is simply no longer the case that being even lower middle class allows you do to without these. I make less than $60k, have a wife that is applying for disability, and the insurance my employer provides me still leaves me with five times--yes, five times--the out of pocket medical expenses I had just a few years ago under earlier plans--and they're talking about raising my premiums again. Without the things that I can barely afford but that you apparently regard as frivolous luxuries, I could not do my job and would likely be out of work or at least be paid considerably less than I am making now. And if I did make considerably less, there is no way I could afford the insurance currently offered on the open market. I'm not sure I could afford it now. Get real.

- timteeter

December 29, 2010 at 1:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

seattleeng: "I have not yet met a republican that believes folks that cannot afford health care should do without." Well, I'd say that maybe you haven't been looking very hard, since I have yet to see a serious Republican proposal that would provide universal coverage. The Republican response to Democratic health care reform was a plan that would cover less than 1/10th of the presently uninsured. I don't count the option of going to the emergency room as real health care, so I can point to most Republicans in Congress as holding the view that seattleeng says he has never encountered. Maybe they feel no one should go without health care, but they haven't provided any mechanism for doing so, and actions count more than words. "But I have met a host of folks here on TNR that believe a poor person should have most all the "stuff" that a wealthy person has." Provide a cite. And then provide evidence that it's what most liberals believe. "is it true that they cannot really afford health care?" Do you know what typical premiums are today on the individual market? A recent survey puts the average family policy premium at $7,102. http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/posr062110nr.cfm And that may require a substantial deductible. What percentage of income do you think should be reasonably expected to cover health insurance costs? "The left is overwhelmingly focused on redistribution via whatever means possible..." Where does this obviously ridiculous assertion come from? I do believe in a floor for essential services, which requires some redistribution, but hardly radical wealth transfer "via whatever means possible." And I believe in an equitable burden of the costs of running government, and if we think people having problems putting food on the table shouldn't be forced to pay, then that necessitates some kind of redistribution--but hardly for its own sake. If conservatives really think that everyone should have health care, even those that can't afford it (as seattleeng claims), then they believe in redistribution too. Same for education. And fire protection. And police protection. We can't have a conversation until we get our facts straight. These false caricatures about liberalism get you nowhere, except to demonstrate an unwillingness to understand what liberalism is. Correction. There was a serious Republican proposal to provide health care for those who couldn't afford it: it was the Republican response to the Clinton health care reform proposal back in the 1990s, and was largely adopted by Obama. Now the Republicans are against it, and they have offered no serious substitute for it.

- dsimon

December 29, 2010 at 2:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

rayward: I'm happy that we agree on progressive taxation and, no doubt, many other things. I'm sure we have much more in common than not so please don't think that I make my comments to be adversarial. I'll reserve that for mr rationale. At the same time, I've seen more and more liberals/progressives jumping on the meme that redistribution of property is theft, mostly to distinguish themselves from socialists, and it irks me to no end because this is an inherently conservative position. To most conservatives, property rights are one of the highest if not the highest rights of the citizenry. Many economic libertarians believe that all of our other freedoms stem from property rights, amazingly enough. These beliefs stem from the idea that capitalism and, by extension, the economy of the United States is a meritocracy where if you work you'll get rewards in rough proportion to your efforts. After all, if one does not earn their keep they have little claim to it. Sadly, a meritocracy is not what we have. We see this idea eviscerated most clearly when we examine the difference in pay between the wealthy and the middle class. As you may be aware, the top 1% of us currently take home roughly 24% of the total income for all people in this country. With a GDP of about $14T, this means that these 3 million people each take home about $4.66M per year on average. Given that the median household income is about $50k, this means that the upper 1% receive over 90 times what the average person does. If this were a meritocracy, these people would also be working 90 times harder, doing as much work as 90 average workers. It's thoroughly ridiculous to believe that anyone can work 90 times harder than anyone else, given the same hours. And this is just compared to the average worker. If we look further down the income scale, the ratio obviously increases and the assumption is that those in the upper 1% work as hard as 100 or even 150 lower-income workers. Those who do not truly earn what is theirs have little claim to it. "one cannot simultaneously support an economic system because it's the most productive and a re-distribution of its spoils. Not only is it hypocrisy, the system would be inherently unsustainable." Actually, this is completely consistent. For example, in the health care reform debate most of us decried the abusive practices of some health care insurance providers. I agreed with these protests. Yet, I also agree that health insurance providers offer a valuable service and deserve to be compensated for it. There is no contradiction in criticizing the flaws in a system and arguing for policies that attempt to remedy them while still supporting the system itself, much as you do when you argue that capitalism needs intervention, which is also true. Unsustainable how? Money flows up, some of it is brought downward by the hand of government and the cycle repeats. More value is constantly created through the workings of resource extraction and also the performance of services so the ultimate source of our prosperity continues to flow and our society grows wealthier, together. Seems pretty sustainable to me.

- NR857175

December 29, 2010 at 3:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

timteeter, the average family in the US spends $1800 on cellphone, and about $1500 on cable and $480 on internet. That right there is almost the cost of a catastrophic health care plan for a family of 4. No, your assertion that these tools are required to function is just not true. Convenient? Hell yes. But required? No. These tools were only available to millionaires just 20 years ago. And suddenly you are arguing they are required by the poorest people in this country? Please.

- seattleeng

December 29, 2010 at 4:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

dsimon: "Well, I'd say that maybe you haven't been looking very hard, since I have yet to see a serious Republican proposal that would provide universal coverage. " Universal coverage is not the same as providing health care to those that can't afford it.

- seattleeng

December 29, 2010 at 4:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I wrote: "But I have met a host of folks here on TNR that believe a poor person should have most all the "stuff" that a wealthy person has." dsimon then wrote: "Provide a cite. And then provide evidence that it's what most liberals believe." Look at the responses when I suggest that the US middle class should be taxed at 40% tax rates (and the wealthy taxed at even higher rates) and that money should be sent to help the person in African that doesn't have clean water. Did you miss Sophia's responses? She became enraged at the notion that money should be taken from our middle class in order to pay for clean water in Africa. Here we have TimTeeter telling us that he MUST have internet and cellphone, even though he cannot pay is medical bills. The evidence is all around us. Overwhelmingly, liberals in the US believe that everyone is entitled to the exact same stuff that wealthy people have. First they proclaim that stuff to be a "right" and "required to live", and then mention the gap between the wealthy and middle class (or poor) and then proclaim the gap cannot exist. it is inhumane. And must be closed. Ergo, liberals do want there to be any difference between the wealthy and un-wealthy. None. Nada. And they work it other ways too. House too big? needs to shrink due to CO2. Car too big? Needs to shrink due to CO2. Everywhere you look you see libs trying to mandate what the others can have, and what they must have.

- seattleeng

December 29, 2010 at 5:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

seattleeng: "She became enraged at the notion that money should be taken from our middle class in order to pay for clean water in Africa." Doesn't that refute your assertion that "a host of folks here on TNR that believe a poor person should have most all the 'stuff' that a wealthy person has"? Seems like it shows the exact opposite. And even if it showed what you wanted it to show, you don't demonstrate that it's representative of people posting here, nor of liberals in general (of whom people posting here may not be representative). "Overwhelmingly, liberals in the US believe that everyone is entitled to the exact same stuff that wealthy people have." Again, you provide zero data to show this, much less that it's "overwhelming." Few people claim that there should be no wealth gaps (as if that were possible), much less that it's a dominant liberal view. Very few liberals are Leninist-style Marxists, which is what you're describing. You're arguing with your preferred fantasy of what most liberals believe instead of seriously addressing what they actually believe. "Everywhere you look you see libs trying to mandate what the others can have, and what they must have." Again, that statement is so obviously false it should not bear commenting. I don't see liberals mandating the price of coffee tables or apples or saying that everyone should have a right to a 52-inch flat-screen TV. I think most liberals believe in letting markets do their thing because they generally produce better products and lower prices through competition. But I think liberals also recognize that there are a few important areas where markets don't get us good results (see the problems in health care, or universal K-12 education which would would be unavailable for those unable to afford whatever price the market sets for these services). In such instances government action should be supported to provide basic access for all. Your caricaturization of liberals as mere outcome-equalizers simply shows a reluctance to engage in serious discussion. I take conservative arguments seriously; I think that they're not out to just help the rich and screw the poor, but that they believe their proposals are best for the nation as a whole (despite what I think is repeated evidence to the contrary), including lower income groups. Unfortunately, I don't see the same consideration in return. "House too big? needs to shrink due to CO2. Car too big? Needs to shrink due to CO2." No, you just should have to pay for the externalities imposed on others--a classic conservative, market-based belief. That hardly prevents the wealthy from having big houses and cars. "Universal coverage is not the same as providing health care to those that can't afford it." If you think that the ER is a sufficient floor for providing "health care" for those who can't afford insurance, there's really nothing I can do to help you. (Plus it's more expensive to you as a taxpayer in the long-term, so it's even more of a wealth transfer.)

- dsimon

December 29, 2010 at 6:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

seattleeng: "the average family in the US spends $1800 on cellphone, and about $1500 on cable and $480 on internet. That right there is almost the cost of a catastrophic health care plan for a family of 4." First, you should provide a cite for your numbers. As I noted above, the average family insurance premium on the non-group market is $7,000, so the cost of the "frills" you name don't come close, and that's with an average family deductible of $5,000. Perhaps a catastrophic plan would have a lower premium, but that doesn't make the plan any more "affordable" if the high deductible would force the family into bankruptcy anyway.

- dsimon

December 29, 2010 at 6:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Liberals don't believe in 'equality of outcomes,' I'm a liberal, I go to all the secret meetings, this is right-wing statist fantasy. Liberals also don't believe that poor people should have everything rich people do. 95% of my friends are liberals and none of them believe this (yes, I know that's anecdotal, but if this belief was so common, you'd think I'd know at least one yeah? feel free to call me a liar I suppose). Liberals believe (although often not this succinctly), that the government should act as a bulwark against burgeoning aristocracy. They believe this is achieved by providing good public education, health care, progressive taxes, social security, and some business regulation. Liberals believe that REAL entrepreneurship among people with decent educations, talents, and social skills, will emerge if such basic necessities are universally provided. Conservatives, sadly, constantly assault logic and reason, and ultimately humanity, because conservatives love themselves some aristocracy. Policies conservatives support: -ending public education -ending social security -privatizing all health care -ending the estate tax Interestingly, nothing gets a conservative more riled up than the issue of affirmative action. Ask a conservative about legacy admissions however, and, at best, you get a tepid 'meh, maybe those should go away too...' The entrepreneurship and meritocracy that conservatives claim to honor so deeply would only take place with liberal policies. Without them, a static and pathetic and punishing aristocracy would emerge.

- mmathog

December 30, 2010 at 12:27am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Liberals everywhere continue to be the enemy of the talented, productive and innovative. This is why their biggest supporters are public sector unions and trial lawyers." A perfect example of a conservative's typical assault on logic and reason. Arguably, the two most 'talented, productive, and innovative' sections of America are Hollywood and Silicon Valley, I don't recall conservatives lauding those areas as bastions of conservative thought.

- mmathog

December 30, 2010 at 12:32am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There are a lot of liberals/democrats because they provide a complete picture of culture, society and government. There are a lot of conservatives/republicans because they also provide a complete picture of culture, society, and government. There are hardly any libertarians because they tend to pretend there is no culture. They tend to pretend that they have the exact answers, they tend to pretend they're above it all. I have less in common with conservatives than I do with libertarians, but actually, conservatives annoy me less. They're in the game, they're fighting for their beliefs, they leave their blood on the floor. Just consider the names of the leading publications: Liberals: The Nation, Salon, The American Prospect, The New Republic, etc... Conservatives: The National Review, The Weekly Standard, etc... Libertarian: Reason 'Reason,' give me a break.

- mmathog

December 30, 2010 at 12:38am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I wrote: ""Everywhere you look you see libs trying to mandate what the others can have, and what they must have." And you droned on for a few paragraphs saying it wasn't true. And then wrote in response to my assertion that libs didn't like people having big houses: "No, you just should have to pay for the externalities imposed on others--a classic conservative, market-based belief. " And I think with that statement and the fact that California just banned incandescent light bulbs you get my point. In spades. You just refuse to admit it. As if the guy with a McMansion and SUV isn't already paying his share. Please. mmathhog writes: "Conservatives, sadly, constantly assault logic and reason, and ultimately humanity, because conservatives love themselves some aristocracy." You are kidding, right? Examples?

- seattleeng

December 30, 2010 at 2:54am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

mmathog: "Arguably, the two most 'talented, productive, and innovative' sections of America are Hollywood and Silicon Valley, I don't recall conservatives lauding those areas as bastions of conservative thought." Silicon valley is loaded with conservatives. Trust me on that. Maybe not at the CEO level (though there are probably more right-leaning CEOs out there than left-leaning in high tech), but get down two levels below that at VP/Director and SVP level, and it's running (in my experience) 3:1 or 4:1 to the right. Now, I will say the last decade of convincing people that republicans are religious nuts having lots of babies have really hurt the right with casual voters. If someone doesn't care about understanding the issues, then they will lean left. It definitely appears to be the more enlightened path on the surface. So much so that I've feigned disinterest altogether to avoid discussing my leanings with certain audiences. But scratch past the veneer, and I'll tell you engineers are generally quite conservative. Hollywood, on the other hand.... Hollywood is full of people that expect millions in salary for 30-40 days work. It is an industry where the cameraman today makes less than the cameraman of 30 years ago (in constant dollars) due to union busting. And yet, the leading stars of today make many times more than their counterparts of yesterday. If they really cared about unions that would not be true. And if they really cared about CEO's making a lot more than janitors, then star salaries would not be ballooning. A top star makes a million dollars for a day of filming. Gads. That's more than the Exxon CEO on in a banner year. But top stars do it all the time. It is an industry that thrives on getting people to drive to a theater so that a star that already has piles of money can have even more money. Last year, Hollywood sold $11B in tickets, which is about 1B tickets sold, or several hundred million car trips that were taken to see a movie. All because Hollywood wants you to still drive to see a movie. Think about that: It's an industry that claims to care about the environment, but they required several BILLION miles be driven just to see their offering. If they really cared about the environment, they'd allow you rent it at home the day it came out for a fair price ($20 or $30). Hollywood is an industry that actively lobbies for huge tax deductions on their productions. They will build an industry in one state, and then leave that industry as soon as another state offers bigger tax concessions. And they don't use these tax concessions to drop the price of a movie, or reign in star salaries or to pay the cameraman more. Instead, they take the tax breaks and distribute them to those that are already making the most. If they really believed in the idea of a strong government where those with more help those with less, they'd not be chasing deductions. Hollywood is an industry where those that work a few weeks a year are deemed so pressed for time that they must fly everywhere private jets. Even for holidays. They cannot be bothered with regular travel. They are oblivious to the fact that travel--any travel via air--carries massive CO2 implications. They just keep doing it. And then make movies about how a soccer mom in an SUV is killing Gaia. And to me, this all makes perfect sense. This is what libs do: They say one thing, but they do another. So, I agree with you that Hollywood is very much filled with libs. It mirrors exactly what I believe libs want. They throw a few scraps here and there to the unwashed masses. And the yokels at the Huffington Post lap it up, and use the accolades from Alec Baldwin to fuel their next wave of envy... oblivious ot the fact that Alec lives nothing like they do. Alec (and Gore and Hanks and Sheryl Crow, and on and on) live exactly how they want to live, using accountants to minimize what they pay to the government and consuming massive resources in the process. Sad, really, how much the poor in this country get played by the wealthy/elites.

- seattleeng

December 30, 2010 at 3:36am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

From age 3 to age 18, I lived in San Jose. From age 22-30, I worked in Mt. View, Sunnyvale, and Foster City. From age 36-present, I worked in San Francisco. All tech jobs. Don't tell me silicon valley is mostly conservative, because I'll think you're insane. It's got some conservatives, some republicans, and a relatively high bunch of libertarians, but it's mostly got democrats.

- mmathog

December 30, 2010 at 8:42am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I guess you could've said 'lots of Hollywooders run their lives/businesses like hypocrites,' maybe so. What I'll say is, people in Hollywood vote democratic in overwhelming numbers. Even more importantly, they hand massive campaign cash to democratic politicians. These democratic politicians then get into office and try hard to enact liberal policies; policies like healthcare and education for way more people, policies like higher taxes on wealthy people. Are you really saying that hollywooders bust their asses to elect liberals because they're secret conservatives trying to fool their audiences? "Sad, really, how much the poor in this country get played by the wealthy/elites." I kind of agree with this, except it's more like 'played by conservative wealthy/elites." The 'liberal elites are playing you!' is yet another example of a big lie, an assault on logic and reason. Conservatives fight hard for policies that will inexorably lead to a static aristocracy, liberals fight hard for the reverse. If conservatives got their way, we'd eventually end up like 18th-19th century europe, the poor and working class would never be able to use their talent/skill to move up.

- mmathog

December 30, 2010 at 8:50am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jim DeMint (I think) said on This Week (I'm almost positive) that buying tanks would create jobs but building schools wouldn't create jobs. Paul Krugman started giggling. Mitt Romney (a very smart guy), in his formal CPAC remarks, 2 sentences apart, pretty much said 'no government healthcare...' and then 'don't touch medicare...' Conservatives, constantly, stated that raising marginal tax rates a couple of points on high earners would harm small businesses. Never, in this history of capitalism, has a small business made a hire/fire or a contract/expand decision based on slight changes in marginal tax rates. BIG businesses do though, in fact, occasionally make such decisions. Although, I think according to conservatives, Bechtel counts as a 'small business' because well, I dunno... keeping up with the constant illogical assault would turn my brain to mush.

- mmathog

December 30, 2010 at 9:02am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I realize I can be more succinct wrt the hollywood thing: The Hollywood star is voting for and giving money to politicians who fight so the cameraman's kid can get a decent education, have healthcare, and good infrastructure. The Hollywood star is fighting to raise his/her own taxes to finance this. These policies dramatically increase the likelihood that the cameraman's child can also make it, and perhaps make it big, just like the Hollywood star. Conservative policies would make it impossible for the cameraman's kid to make it.

- mmathog

December 30, 2010 at 9:18am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

seattleeng: "But scratch past the veneer, and I'll tell you engineers are generally quite conservative." Having worked in engineering for two decades, I can confirm this is true... for all that it's worth. Tempermentally, engineers are conservative, because the discipline, by its very nature, requires people who are risk adverse to ensure that designs maximize safety. The dirty little secret is that most engineers are little more than the carpenters and plumbers of the tech world. They can design and build a super-conducting super-collider, but would be completely lost in a discussion of the theoretical physics behind it all. In general, engineers are highly knowledgable in their own fields of study. However, when they stray from those areas, they are no smarter than the proverbial man in the street.

- zardoz67

December 30, 2010 at 11:25am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Agree, Zardoz. I think engineers do have better than average problem solving skills, but beyond that many can be overly analytical. mmathog writes: " The Hollywood star is fighting to raise his/her own taxes to finance [the camera man]" You gotta be kidding. Hollywood star X takes a $30M salary on a movie that requires 30 days of filming and then fights for dem policies so the cameraman that he just spent 30 days working alongside can get better pay? Why not just tell the producer "Take half of my $30M salary, and give the top 200 staff on this movie an extra $150K." The ONLY reason Hollywood elite votes for liberal policies is because they are absolutely embarrassed by what they have created for themselves. As I noted, there are times where I won't reveal my party affiliation. And I can promise you if someone were paying me $30M for 30 days of work, I'd be out for the democratic party too. And I'd chalk it up to the cost of doing business. How else can you not seem like a jackass with your good fortune? But since actions speak louder than words, name me 3 hollywood liberal that you believe best exemplify dem policies. This oughta be fun. :) Prediction: They will all have enormous houses, massive CO2 footprints, fight like hell to minimize their taxes, treat their staff poorly, give little to charity, divorced several times, and preach how they want the rest of America to live. Or something like that.

- seattleeng

December 30, 2010 at 12:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Seattleeng, Think about fire departments like mandatory insurance coverage. The more real estate you have, the more potential for fire and also the more taxes you pay; you clearly understand this relationship judging from your comments. But, in the aggregate, society never gains value from fire protection just as, in the aggregate, the customers who purchase health insurance never gain as much value from the protection as they put in. The insurance company retains this as profit and overhead whereas the fire department pays its employees and maintains its equipment, which usually sit idle. The whole point of the exercise is to distribute the costs of disaster so that no one person suffers a catastrophic financial burden, not to make a profit from the arrangement. Whether or not anyone gets more value than what they put in is irrelevant. The real issue here is whether or not the upper classes receive more services in proportion to their taxes as compared to the lower classes. I would argue and you seem to agree that because the wealthy have more property they require more fire services and, yes, this is mitigated to a large extent by property taxes as you correctly point out. But property taxes only keep the ratio of services to taxes even. What tips the scale in the direction of the upper classes is the fact that, in residential settings, some or all property taxes are passed on to renters in the form of higher rent. If you do not own your own home, and the lower class almost always falls into this category, you're still paying for part of the fire protection on the building, subsidizing the owner in effect. As far as police go, I'm sure we all realize that poor people commit many more crimes of either kind, property or violent. But the value of this police service does not benefit the perpetrators, obviously, and so your statement about how the wealthy are much more often the victims of the poor than vice versa does not show what you think it does. In fact, it shows exactly the opposite - that the wealthy get far more protection and pursuit of justice than the poor. I'm not saying that they come out ahead or break even but there's no question that they receive much more service in proportion to their taxes.

- NR857175

December 30, 2010 at 2:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't see any need to defend Hollywood actors. Seattle's point is that Hollywood "stars" are hypocrites because most of them purport to be "liberal," but have no problem with the fact that they have an astronomically higher income than camera operators or studio janitors. But that makes Hollywood actors hyocrites only if it is true that liberalism entails the belief that there should be no income disparity or that individuals should not be able to accumulate wealth. That assumption has been thoroughly debunked here, and is patently false. Dhurtado

- NR143296

December 30, 2010 at 3:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

NR857175- What you say may be true, but the moral justification for progressive taxation is not that the wealthy consume more in public services. It is that they have excess wealth AND that their wealthy is largely attributable to pure luck. (Even high intelligence and talent is attributable to luck.) It is therefore moral that they be required to relinquish SOME of their wealth (still leaving them wealthy) so that less fortunate individuals can have access to public services, education, health care, etc. Dhurtado

- NR143296

December 30, 2010 at 3:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

NR writes: "In fact, it shows exactly the opposite - that the wealthy get far more protection and pursuit of justice than the poor." Not sure I agree. Take a guy earning $10M a year, paying 10% state and local taxes. As established, a city might spend 23% of their revenue on police and fire protection. The rich guy is paying roughly $1M in state/local taxes, meaning his share of police/fire is roughly $230K per year. In 30 years of living in a city, perhaps he needs the fire department once or twice, and the police just a handful of times. Yet he has paid $6.9M for these services over 30 years. Even if his house burned down, and took 20 fire fighters 12 hours to fight the blaze, the's nowhere close to getting a return on that. So, the ultra wealthy are not getting anywhere near a fair deal on safety. But, it is what it is. I do understand we all pay and may or may not see a full return. But please, let's drop this notion that the wealthy are mooching off of society. If you cannot demonstrate they are for police/fire, then you cannot demonstrate it anywhere else I suspect. Higher taxes on the wealthy (and ultra wealthy) are just anger and envy. BTW, wrt Hollywood. I don't begrudge them what they are able to negotiate. It just strikes me as odd that DSimon brings up Hollywood as some liberal fantasy of where things work well. In fact, Hollywood exemplifies all that folks normally attribute to greedy corporations and greedy individuals. And yet they are all professed libs. Odd that is. And guys like DSimon don't even question it, because he believes they are "for the team" and thus they get a pass. Or something like that.

- seattleeng

December 30, 2010 at 3:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Just quickly checking in on this conversation from a truck stop off the interstate, I only have time to say that, re: seattleeng, my wife used to sell health insurance to the self-employed. Your figures are a joke. Oh, and btw, I did not say the cellphones were a necessity. But phones are by now, and for many, that means a cell phone. Yes, twenty years ago people got along fine without internet access. 100 years ago people got along without cars. So what? Access to a middle class life increasingly requires things that were uncommon not so long ago, including the internet. I could not do my job--higher education--today without home internet access, something not provided by my employer. I suspect that is true for a great many. Regardless, the cost of decent health insurance (depending on your definition of "decent") for a family of four in anything like an area of significant population density is impossible for the kinds of money you are suggesting--and that assumes that all four are reasonably healthy with no prior conditions, at least before the ACA passed. I have watched the price of employer provided health insurance, meanwhile, skyrocket over the last twenty years. Thank God my wife had her breast cancer several years ago, because if it happened today, even with out insurance, we'd be in much worse trouble, and if we were self-employed or unemployed we'd just be totally fucked.

- timteeter

December 30, 2010 at 3:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Average family cost of insurance in 2009: $13337. Average. Source: Kaiser.

- timteeter

December 30, 2010 at 3:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

settleeng: "'No, you just should have to pay for the externalities imposed on others--a classic conservative, market-based belief.' "And I think with that statement and the fact that California just banned incandescent light bulbs you get my point. In spades. You just refuse to admit it." I think you just refused to answer just about all of my responses. I asked you to provide real data to support your claim that "Overwhelmingly, liberals in the US believe that everyone is entitled to the exact same stuff that wealthy people have." You still haven't provided it. It's probably because your claim is simply incorrect. Can you admit it? As far as a carbon tax goes, that's an idea that has been supported by many conservatives. I don't know how I feel about a complete ban on incandescent bulbs, but it hardly proves your assertion that liberals demand that everyone have the same amount of stuff. Do you think there should not have been a ban on PCBs which were used to make transformers, or should we just live with the toxins and let the market take care of it? We can have a difference of opinion, but the goal of the ban is to improve the environment, not to force everyone to have the same lifestyle. And if you believe that everyone should have a basic education, that makes you a redistributionist too. The issue is one of degree, not of kind. Really, you shouldn't just answer the criticisms you feel like. Sometimes you can admit the other side has a point or too. Isn't it possible that your generalizations about liberals are wrong? And if you don't take their arguments seriously, how can you hope to have a real discussion, or change anyone's mind? "As if the guy with a McMansion and SUV isn't already paying his share. Please." Please, check your facts. When all taxes are considered, our system is pretty flat. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/just-how-progressive-is-the-tax-system/ We can have a difference of opinion as to what constitutes "fair." But the point is that the goal of a tax structure is not to equalize after-tax income, even for most liberals; it's to have some kind of fair burden, and most people think it's unfair to ask much of people who are having trouble putting food on the table (perhaps you disagree). If you want to have a real discussion, I'm willing to do so. But I can't have a discussion with someone who keeps recasting the other side's arguments as caricatures in order to support a predetermined and unyielding ideological position.

- dsimon

December 30, 2010 at 4:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"What you say may be true, but the moral justification for progressive taxation is not that the wealthy consume more in public services. It is that they have excess wealth AND that their wealthy is largely attributable to pure luck." Oh yes. That is another reason for it. Totally agree. I just also believe that our government structures benefit the wealthy more than the poor, with the exception of public schools and various programs specifically designed to benefit the lower class or the otherwise disadvantaged. "Yet he has paid $6.9M for these services over 30 years. Even if his house burned down, and took 20 fire fighters 12 hours to fight the blaze, the's nowhere close to getting a return on that." Again, I'm not arguing that they see anything close to a full return on their taxes. It's irrelevant and I think I've made myself clear on this point. Nobody gets more than they put in unless they're the beneficiary of programs designed to do just that, such as welfare, unemployment, SSI, certain types of corporate welfare, farm subsidies, etc. "But please, let's drop this notion that the wealthy are mooching off of society. If you cannot demonstrate they are for police/fire, then you cannot demonstrate it anywhere else I suspect. Higher taxes on the wealthy (and ultra wealthy) are just anger and envy." I, unlike some around here, do not view someone benefiting from existing structures as "mooching" or "parasitic" (to cite mr rationale) as this implies that they intend to do so and have control over the situation. I and the vast majority of liberals don't begrudge the wealthy simply for being wealthy, contrary to many conservatives' beliefs. I simply insist that they contribute in rough proportion to their means and wish that some of them would be less avaricious at times. You and I have different definitions of what is fair for them to contribute - and that's fine - but please don't claim that I'm angry with or envious of the upper classes. You don't see me suggesting that you hate poor people even though I believe your preferred policies would harm them. To illustrate how disconnected from reality your belief is, I'll tell you that I, myself, was born into very much above average economic circumstances. My father is a surgeon and I attended excellent private schools from 4th grade through high school and then went to a good, non-state university. It would be very difficult for me to be envious of the upper classes since I had the privilege of enjoying most of the advantages that they do. Again, I merely have a different definition of what is fair for them to contribute. Since you didn't address my point about the proportion of dollars to services, instead focusing on nominal taxes and how a hypothetical rich person wouldn't recoup the value of their contribution despite its irrelevance to the topic at hand, your claim that I can't prove my point about the benefits they receive has no basis as yet.

- NR857175

December 30, 2010 at 5:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Here's the short course on the inanities of economic libertarianism. Libertarians believe that the market allocates to each individual his or her "marginal contribution" to output. Hence, before one considers taxation, each has received his "fair share" of total output. This is a myth. There is zero empirical evidence for the claim and lots of empirical evidence to the contrary, that disproportionate income shares are principally economic rents, excess share that someone is able to extract from everyone else due to market failures of various kinds, including government management that affirmatively uses unemployment and trade policy as a means of controlling inflation and exerting downward pressure on wages. Until the rise of rapacious Republicanism and libertarianism, the philosophy underpinning our system of taxation was that it is both inefficient and impracticable to try and assure perfect or near perfect markets in detail. There is neither sufficient knowledge nor sufficient management resources to do this. We would have to have a centrally planned economy and the technology does not exist to do that successfully. Hence the failure of the Soviet Union. As it is impracticable to assure perfect or near perfect markets in detail, the compromise is to allow the imperfect markets to achieve their inequitable result, so that we get the benefits of the allocative efficiencies of markets, and then, on a global level, mitigate the income equality that results. The libertarians want the benefit of markets, as do we all, but are unwilling to keep the end of the bargain that says, after the fact we have to make the people who get screwed something like whole. In what sense are they screwed? Because income is generated by labor, and American income is generated by American labor, not African labor. This is way seattle's example of taxing the middle class to support Africans is specious. Our wealthy are not living off of the labor of Africans, they are living off of the labor of Americans. As well, even if one believed that the allocation by the market of pre-tax income is perfect in that each receives his marginal contribution to output, I have no idea where or how the libertarians justify their idée fixe that only flat tax rates are therefore fair, that the percentage of income share after tax has to be the same as the percentage before tax. Where does this idea come from? The people being taxed are not equal in their economic outcomes. Why should their tax rate be equal? There is simply no a priori means of justifying this. The libertarians just claim it as if it were obvious because that is the outcome the want and they cannot justify it. Economic output is a product of the whole society, not of individuals. Yes, there are on occasion brilliant or creative individuals whose efforts generate a grossly disproportionate share of output. These are far and away the exception. They are held up by the Randians as if this were generally the case, but it is not. Production is a cooperative enterprise and its output needs to be fairly shared in relationship to the effort involved. But what is fair also has no abstract definition. It is socially determined. The best means of determining fairness is democratically. If you want to be a part of our society, you accept any democratic outcome because there does not exist any a priori distribution, given by god, that can be said to be superior to the democratically determined outcome. The most efficient means of implementing the democratic determination it is to allow markets to achieve what they can and then adjust the outcome to our democratic idea of fairness. There is NOTHING that economic libertarianism can contribute intellectually to that process. It is at the end of the day a rapacious, bankrupt, utterly savage ideology, a jungle ideology, the outcome of which is a favored few living behind very high walls holding off masses of people with violence. Libertarians must resort to a fictional account of economic life in order to make their philosophy seem remotely plausible. A philosophy built on a stack of deliberate lies should not command any attention other than scorn.

- roidubouloi

December 30, 2010 at 5:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

timteeter writes: "Average family cost of insurance in 2009: $13337. Average. Source: Kaiser." Tim, I said catastrophic care insurance. That means that any expenses you incur over $4000 or $5000 are covered (or whatever limit you wish). Those policies are really cheap. Search on "catastrophic care insurance" and you can read up on it. They are also known as "high deductible" policies. My point is that average cable + average internet + average cellphone bill will almost buy a family a cat care policy. So, families that have prioritized those things over health care are foolish. Sure, they don't cover strep throat and broken arms. But they do make sure you dont' lose your house if your spouse gets cancer or your child gets hit by a car or if you fall off a ladder. Those policies are so cheap the government could give them to everyone for very little cost. But there's a contingent in this country that wants NOTHING related to medical to cost them even a penny, including boob jobs and sex change operations. In practice, I think the controls that are in the Obamacare are actually pretty good. They state that nobody should spend more than X% of their salary on medical care, and if they do, they get subsidies.

- seattleeng

December 31, 2010 at 12:17am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

dsimon: "I asked you to provide real data to support your claim that "Overwhelmingly, liberals in the US believe that everyone is entitled to the exact same stuff that wealthy people have." You still haven't provided it. It's probably because your claim is simply incorrect." Have you checked on those that advocate a living wage? That philosophy specifies a minimum level of food, utilities, transport, health care and recreation. Most dems I know love the idea of a living wage. If you look at the "alternatives.org" website, which I suspect is run by some progressive folks, they will work out a plan for you in which a BARE MINIMUM they believe is necessary for a single person with an 8th grade education includes... A car, an unlimited long distance calling plan, high speed internet, sport and recreation equipment, TV radio and sound equipment, and reading materials, $200/year in footwear, $500 a year in clothing, full health care for $1700. Think about this. They arent' saying "well, if someone can't afford a car, then maybe they should have stayed in school through 12th grade". They are saying NO MATTER WHAT, EVERYONE DESERVES A CAR AND CABLE TV AND UNLIMITED LONG DISTANCE CALLING REGARDLESS OF THEIR LIFE CHOICES. There are countless others on the internet telling you what they believe is included in a living wage. I think that validates my assertion.

- seattleeng

December 31, 2010 at 12:38am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

dsimon: "If you want to have a real discussion, I'm willing to do so. But I can't have a discussion with someone who keeps recasting the other side's arguments as caricatures in order to support a predetermined and unyielding ideological position." Interesting (and perhaps fair) critique. Tell me how you want to narrow the discussion given the format we have. I would love nohting more to arrive at a few sentences we both agree or disagree upon.

- seattleeng

December 31, 2010 at 12:48am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Actually, given our starting point (health care) on page one (which always seems to result in a tax discussion), let me propose the following truths that we can agree on: 1) Nobody in the US should lose their home or savings due to serious illness 2) Nobody in the US should have to spend more than 10% of their salary in any year on medical bills. 3) Medical care is extremely costly, and the expense must be shouldered by all members of society 4) Europe's middle class pays considerably higher tax rates than the US middle class, and their social programs--including medical care--are a big reason why 5) Health care for all in the US is readily achievable if the lower middle class are willing to spend $8K to $12K per year, and if the wealthier are willing to spend $25-$35K per year. Today, we have a per-capita health care cost for a family of 4 that runs roughly $25K. Any health care plan must raise roughly that amount to succeed. So far so good? Nothing contentious here? Care to add a few?

- seattleeng

December 31, 2010 at 12:58am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Seattle- Your language skills imply that you are capable of rational analysis. So why do you persist in your dishonesty. "Alternatives" purports to be a federal credit union, not some "progressive" think tank, and its "livable wage" purports to set forth what is necessary to live above the poverty line. I see nothing there about an "entitlement" to live above the poverty line, although that would hardly be a particularly aggressive position to take. But all the more so, there is no claim of an entitlement to the "exact same stuff that wealthy people have." Not to speak for dsimon, but the issue is whether progressive taxation is justified and desirable, not whether there should be no income disparity. Dhurtado

- NR143296

December 31, 2010 at 1:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Seattle, Your last post is not addressed to me, but I will comment nonetheless. Your first three statements are normative propositions with which I suspect most people here would agree. Your remaining statements are assertions of fact. Given your track record, I am not willing to accept them at face value. But go ahead, tell us what conclusion you are seeking to draw.

- NR143296

December 31, 2010 at 1:30am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Let's talk about reality a bit, shall we? The net national product of $13 trillion divided by the US population of 307 million is $42,000 of annual income per capita. I believe that medical care is currently 17% of GDP (not NDP which is the $13 trillion figure). That puts it at $8,000 per capita. A family of four would have an average annual bill of $32,000, but the $24,000 that seattle quotes is probably still too high because a hugely disproportionate share of the end-of-life costs that are such a large part of health care are paid by the Federal government through Medicare. My firm covers four families with a total of five children for $32,000 from the first dollar. So take $16,000 as the annual cost for a family of four before Medicare eligibility. The median household income in the US is $46,000. That makes the cost of medical care 35% of median household income. Median is by definition the figure for which half of households are below and half above. For those below, the percentage is much higher. Catastrophic insurance does not solve the problem, because the rest of the costs don't vanish. The average cost is the average cost, whether it is paid by insurance, catastrophic insurance, or out of pocket. Medical care is simply unaffordable for a large swath of society. Most of those for whom it is unaffordable just pray no one gets sick or suffers an injury. Seattle has no idea, because numbers are not his thing despite the moniker, how much of what he calls "income redistribution" is implied by limiting everyone's annual medical costs to 10% of income. For one thing, it isn't enough. The aggregate medical tab is $2.5 trillion which is 19% of NDP (how could 10% be enough if medical care is 17% of GDP, let alone NDP). If we limit everyone's healthcare costs to 10%, we still have to raise 9% with taxes. If the tax is a flat tax, as seattle would like, then everyone is paying 19%, just in two different pieces. Here is a sensible proposal: charge a flat tax of 20% of income up to $100,000 to cover the annual cost of social security (bearing in mind that wage earners are already paying payroll taxes of 12.6%) and of total medical care (under some version of a single payer system). For someone earning $20,000, the cost of full medical coverage, above what they now pay in payroll taxes, would be $1,700. I am also building in the assumption that $500 billion of the total medical tab of $2.5 trillion is discretionary stuff that no plan would cover. There is a $700 billion shortfall for social benefits. Make it up with energy taxes. The rest of the Federal budget is $2 trillion. A 50% income tax rate on income above $100,000 will cover that and will hit only the top income quintile. Pretty much everyone with an income under $100,000 should have more to live on, although the very low-end will still need income support that I have not accounted for. Seattle will consider this income redistribution. Why? _________________ It is necessary to understand that as soon as you accept that the wealthiest should only pay for the fire department the value to them of the fire department, you have already accepted, without knowing it, the core libertarian assumption that all costs of living should be at a common market price and all taxes should be flat. As my philosophy professor used to say, the mistake is usually on the first page. If you don't catch the mistake on the first page, everything else will make perfect sense and yet lead to an incorrect conclusion. The mistake is the assumption that taxation's only purpose is to allocate the cost of government services that the market will not provide roughly according to the benefit received by each taxpayer. This is nonsense. A perfect legitimate goal of taxation is to mitigate the extremes created by relying on a largely unregulated market for the allocation of pre-tax income. This is not "redistribution" unless you have also already accepted the libertarian assumption that the pre-tax allocation is in some fundamental sense "correct" or "fair." It is neither. It is the particular outcome of a type of economic machine that is useful for certain purposes but is not a magic allocator of just rewards. We can perfectly well enjoy the benefits of market allocation while correcting its excesses. The libertarians, to make their case, have to claim, quite falsely, that if we mess at all with the outcome we will destroy the machine. This is objective nonsense. Ask the Finns. That they have to base their philosophy on objective nonsense tells you how we should regard it. As nonsense. _______________ Anyone who examines my numbers carefully will realize that our most serious problem, more serious than the budget deficit which we could correct overnight simply by raising income taxes to an appropriate level, is that we spend about $1 trillion too much on health care because the system is out of control and cannot be brought under control by any market mechanism. It is an example of market failure. If we do not employ government, not just to subsidize care but to control costs directly, our medical system threatens to wreak our economy.

- roidubouloi

December 31, 2010 at 11:18am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I enjoyed your analysis roid. But I fear it is far too subtle for some of reader/posters here. Why shy away from the term "redistribution"? In a literal sense, even a flat tax is redistributive in the sense that it involves taking money from individuals and corporations and reallocating it for purposes that may or may not benefit those from whom it is taken. Indeed, in some cases it is directly distributed to other individuals (e.g., unemployment benefits and social security). That is redistribution in a common-sense meaning of the word, and yet it is morally and econimically justifiable for the reasons you state. The term "redistribution of wealth" entered into our current political parlance as a result of Obama's response to Joe the Plumber's question about the tax rate going up by a few points for those making more than $250k per year. When Obama said we need to "spread the wealth" a bit, that's what he was talking about -- a mildly progressive tax structure. But it was disingenuously construed by his opponents as an intent to equalize wealth across the board.

- NR143296

December 31, 2010 at 1:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

A small mistake up there: My firm covers two families, not four, with a total of five children.

- roidubouloi

December 31, 2010 at 1:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The term doesn't bother me, dhurtado. In the technical, economic sense, allocation is distribution. If the market makes an allocation and then we make a further allocation through any form of taxation, that can be considered redistribution. However, the market distributes within the tax regime so it is not at all a two-step process even though the collection of tax revenues is asynchronous with the generation of taxable income. But we cannot know where the burden of taxation falls with any precision because, if for example we did not have income taxes, it is by no means the case that what we now define as taxable income would remain allocated as it is now. Some would gain, some would lose. Withal, the term redistribution has taken on a propaganda gloss that I think is unhelpful. This is the way conservative/libertarians "frame" the issue of the proper level of taxation. If you concede that income taxes are "redistribution," you have already lost have the rhetorical battle because you are arguing the propriety of "redistribution" rather than of "distribution" of net income, which is what matters and which is in fact the reality. There is no "redistribution" occurring, only the totality of distribution within a regime that includes the labor and goods markets and the government.

- roidubouloi

December 31, 2010 at 1:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

NR writes: "So why do you persist in your dishonesty. " I cited a progressive group that believes in a living wage, and their definition of a living wage included many items as a necessity that I personally would consider a luxury. Do most progressives believe in a living wage? Yes, I think that is a given. The internet is filled with discussions of what should be part of a living wage. Read them. Find some progressive thinkers THAT DO NOT believe car, internet and cellphone should be part of a living wage. Harvard's definition of a living wage ($12/hour) much higher than what the alternatives.org folks proposed ($9.60). Thus I assume Harvard is a believer that cellphone, cable, internet and a car are all required for someone with an 8th grade education. Why you call this dishonesty I don't quite follow.

- seattleeng

December 31, 2010 at 2:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

NR writes: " But go ahead, tell us what conclusion you are seeking to draw." I am seeking a conclusion in which we all agree that Obamacare is a good idea that simply punted the costs down the road. AP reports today that a family earning $90K that retires in 2011 will have paid $114K into medicare, but they will extract some $355K from medicare. As a first order, it means that medicare taxes need to be roughly 3X what they are today for it to be sustainable. We should dig into items 4 and 5. Do you really think EU taxes levels on middle class are NOT much higher than US? They are staggeringly higher.

- seattleeng

December 31, 2010 at 2:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

With all respect roid, I don't think the distinction between "distribution" and "redistribution," while technically accurate, is a powerful rhetorical tool at all. Most people won't even understand it. They think of "redistribution" as taking money from A and giving it to B, which is exactly what even a flat tax does. People think of "redistribution of wealth" as taking money from productive people and giving it to unproductive people so that everyone has the same level of wealth. But that is not what anyone is advocating. What people need to understand is that when they object to what Gingrich, Cantor, DeMint et al. call "redistribution of wealth," they are objecting to social security, medicare, unemployment benefits, other social services, and even mildly progressive taxes. So rather than get hung up on whether those things can be correctly be called "redistributive," let's call out what the right is really talking about. They are talking about destroying social security, medicare, etc., and eliminating progressive taxation. Dhurtado

- NR143296

December 31, 2010 at 2:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You are making my point, dhurtado. I don't have a problem with either "distribution" or "redistribution" because I understand what they mean. But it is a rhetorical dead-end for any sort of progressive agenda. As soon as the discussion becomes about "redistribution," meaning as soon as the conservative/libertarians succeed in framing it that way and getting everyone to talk about it, at least half the battle is already lost. We need to talk about decency, the American dream, and opportunity for everyone who works hard to have a decent life. This business about everyone having what the wealthy have is absurd, a case of misdirection.

- roidubouloi

December 31, 2010 at 2:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It is dishonest Seattle because you cited the source as support for your claim that liberals believe there is an entitlement on the part of all to have the "exact same stuff that wealthy people have." A definition by Alternatives.org, Harvard, or anyone else of what constitutes a living wage is not the same as advocating an entitlement. But even if it were, it clearly does not support the claim that liberals advocate a requirement that everyone have all the stuff that wealthy people have. You're too smart not to know that. Dhurtado

- NR143296

December 31, 2010 at 2:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roid, we've discussed the 50% tax rate on income over $100K. You mean 50% of everything that is earned beyond $100K is taxed, and then also there are state and local taxes on top of that right? So, an earner would only see some $0.35 of each dollar earned on anything over $100K? Yes, I do consider this punative and redistributive. Because it would mean that the top ~20% are earning perhaps 50% of the money but paying some 90% of the taxes? Perhaps you have already done those numbers and can more accurately outline them? I also believe it would lead many to just quit working. If at $100K my I only saw $0.35 of each dollar earned (instead of $0.68), then I'd simply move to part time. That means doctors, lawyers, etc, would see their effective hourly rate drop to well under what GM is paying fork lift drivers (including benefits). This would be massively disruptive to the entire economy. Students could not afford to seek any higher degrees because the payback on those degrees would never happen. We have an entire generation aspiring to be managers of something, but not higher. Thinking about it another way, in order to buy a $35K car, I would effectively pay $100K for that car, since I only get to keep some $0.35 cents on the dollar. Today, that $35K car would cost $58K since only 1/3 of my earnings are taken via tax. So, the demand for modestly higher end products would dry up almost over night since you have effectively doubled the amount someone has to work to buy that exact same product. I don't think there's an economist out there today that is thinking in line with you on this. Even all the nut jobs at Berkeley aren't thinking of anything this oppressive. Roid writes: "This is objective nonsense. Ask the Finns." Finland taxes their middle class at an effective rate of 38.4% according to the OECD. That same study cites the US tax on our middle class at 11.9%. If we were taxing our middle class at the rate of Finland, we'd not be having this discussion. We'd have plenty of money for healthcare for all. That is my point of this discussion. Everyone here wants what the EU has, but nobody here has the courage to understand how they pay for it. They pay for it with massive taxes on the middle class. As soon as someone acks that, I'll be happy and I will quite typing. But Obamacare just absolutely ignored this. That is what is wrong with Obama care. And that is what so many are upset about. Roid, a simple question: Do you agree the EU taxes on the middle class are MUCH MUCH higher than US taxes on the middle class? 1) http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Taxes/P148855.asp do not eat the link. do not eat the link. do not eat the link. do not eat the link. do not eat the link. do not eat the link. do not eat the link. do not eat the link. do not eat the link. do not eat the link. do not eat the link. do not eat the link. do not eat the link. do not eat the link. do not eat the link. do not eat the link. do not eat the link. do not eat the link. do not eat the link. do not eat the link. do not eat the link.

- seattleeng

December 31, 2010 at 2:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

But the convservatives/libertarians have already succeeded in framing the debate that way, roid, for about two years now. Indeed, it is a large factor in the Dems having lost the House and having nearly lost the Senate. It won't do to say, no, no, its not "RE-distribution," its "distribution." Rather, we need to drive home what the right is really talking about when it talks about "redistribution." It is talking about what 90% percent of us holds dear. Dhurtado

- NR143296

December 31, 2010 at 2:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

NR writes: "But even if it were, it clearly does not support the claim that liberals advocate a requirement that everyone have all the stuff that wealthy people have" So, then let me ask you: Should minimum wage in this country be enough so that someone can buy and operate a car, include money for a cellphone, cable, computer and internet, and include things like electricity to operate AC, and also include health care?

- seattleeng

December 31, 2010 at 2:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Actually, Seattle, I have never analyzed what the minimum wage should be, and don't have strong feelings about whether there should be a minimum wage at all. But the current mininum wage isn't even close to what Alternatives and Harvard call a "living wage," is it? But what does any of that have to do with your claim that liberals believe everyone is entitled to have all the stuff that wealthy people have? Dhurtado

- NR143296

December 31, 2010 at 3:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

NR writes: " But what does any of that have to do with your claim that liberals believe everyone is entitled to have all the stuff that wealthy people have?" Not sure why you are having trouble grasping this. 1) FACT: Progressives generally believe a living wage is a good thing 2) FACT: A living wage is minimally defined as including the cited luxury items (cellphone, cable, etc) 3) FACT: Tim Teeter claims these luxury items are mandatory for even the poorest person seeking a job 4) FACT: Roid just typed a missive in which he advocates a modestly priced car of $35K should require twice as much work to purchase, making it practically unobtainable to someone earning $150K or more. The first 3 items raise the minimum bar by ensuring the poor a government-sponsored right to stuff they otherwise could not afford. The last item compresses the maximum amount of stuff a person can accumulate by making it more expensive. So we have broad sources on the internet for 1 and 2, and we have members right here in front of us, all advocating the same thing. And you claim you don't see this? But I'll ask you the direct question again: Should a person with a 10th grade eduction in this country be guaranteed the right to earn enough such that he can afford the items I mentioned? It doesn't take long to think about this. I think you are saying you haven't though about it because in your heart you DO believe that they should be entitled to all those things. No shame in that. It's perfectly in line with 1) and 2). Please just answer. And alas, let's remember what got us here: My assertion was that if people put more emphasis on core items of import, such as spending their own money on medical care, rather than spending money on luxuries such as cable, cellphone, internet, etc, then our health care issues would be lessened. Our middle class and lower middle class have the money to pay for a big piece of their healthcare. They just opt to spend the money on other things. Again, back the entire EU tax thing....

- seattleeng

December 31, 2010 at 3:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So, in other words, the "living wage" thing has nothing to do with your claim that liberals believe that all are entitled to have all the stuff that wealthy people have. Neither your "internet" sources, teeter nor roid have expressed such a belief. As to your much more modest claim that liberals believe the minimum wage should be $9 to $12 an hour so that people can afford things like cell phones and computers, your ONE internet source says nothing about an entitlement. It merely defines what a living wage is. Are you equating "living wage" with a legally required minimum wage? In any event, even if liberals or progressives monolithically believe that the minimum wage should be raised to $9 or $12, so what? That is not what the minimum wage currently is, and I see no movement afoot to raise it. Is it your position that people are not entitled to assistance with health care costs unless they are willing to live at or below the poverty line? And that liberals would not require people to give up those things in order to receive assistance with health care costs? If that is the issue, then, yes, I would side with the liberals. Finally, I would appreciate you not presuming to tell me what I think. I answered your question 100% honestly. As I suggested, I have never been completely comfortable with minimum wage laws, either as a legitimate exercise of government power, or as being desirable from the standpoint of economic efficiency. If I were asked to vote on a proposal to raise the minimum wage to $9 or $12, I would need more information about the economic justification for doing so. Frankly, I find it difficult to believe that $12/hour is sufficient to purchase cell-phone service, cable service, a computer and internet service, and an automobile, all in addition to funding the costs of housing, food, clothing, and other bare necessities. On the other hand, it is completely self-serving to regard cell-phone service, etc., as "luxuries." But even if I were to vote "no" on the minimum-wage increase, I would not require people to live at or below the poverty line, or to give up cell-phones and computers, before they would be entitled to assistance with health care costs. I am not conversant in the economics of the health care legislation, nor in the tax structures in Europe, so I will leave you to debate that issue with roid, if you wish. If your point is that sustaining universal health care will require increased tax revenues, that is probably true, and probably justified. Dhurtado

- NR143296

December 31, 2010 at 7:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

seattle, state and local taxes are another 10% of NDP. I am willing to assume for purposes of this discussion that they are nearly flat, some hit the wealthy more, others, such as sales taxes, are regressive, hitting those at lower income harder. (Or you can assume that my suggested rates are jiggered to offset any slight progressivity in state and local taxes, doesn't matter.) That means that, under my plan, a family earning $100,000 has its medical care paid for and $70,000 to live on. A family that earns $200,000 has its medical care paid for and $110,000 to live on. Today, someone earning $100,000, including the employer portion of payroll taxes, has a tab of $12,000 for payroll taxes, an effective $8,000 for state and local taxes, and $18,000 for Federal taxes. That leaves him a net of $52,000. If he actually pays for full health insurance, rather than rolling the dice, he has $36,000 left. Assume he rolls the dice for half of that, he still has only $44,000 left compared to the $70,000 I would give him Do you think he works part-time as a result? The head of household earning $200,000 today, assuming for simplicity that the second $100,000 escapes all FICA, has to pay another $1,500 of payroll taxes, another $6,500 of effective state and local tax (after the benefit of the tax deduction), and about $34,000 of federal income taxes, total of $41,000. Let's assume he pays the rest of the cost of insurance the other guy cannot afford. He has $51,000 of marginal net income. Grand total for him, $95,000. That is still less than the $110,000 I would give him. Under my plan, a guy with $300,000 of income has a net of $150,000. His current net is $154,000. That means the break-even between current taxes, that do not fully fund government, and my plan is about $290,000. Everyone under that would do better my way. Everyone over that would pay more. Are we supposed to be upset by this? The likelihood that the guy with the high-paying job, over $290,000, more than 6 times the median household income is going to stop working if he only has a marginal 40% out of his marginal income is simply not true. We had 90% marginal rates under Eisenhower. There were not a lot of executives sitting around on the porch. But, even if they did, that would not be a bad thing. It would mean that the workforce of highly paid people would expand as more people at shorter hours would be needed for those jobs. That would tighten the rest of the labor market and lead to a more equal pre-tax distribution of income. What you do not seem to get is that the reason that middle class taxes are so much higher in the EU is not just that they get more services, such as health care, that the middle class here still has to pay for as if it were a tax. It is because income is much more evenly distributed there. Hence, there is far less income to tax at the high end. If income was perfectly flat, then taxes would be perfectly flat. Their taxes are much flatter because their income is much flatter. The fact that the break-even between my structure and current structure is so high, $290,000, is as good an indicator as any that the earnings of the top 5% and 1% and 0.1% in the US represent an almost unfathomable share of national income. If families earning under $290,000 had their health care fully covered and more disposable income than they do today, ours would be a much better, stronger, and just society. We would have a much less fragile economy because we would have a better balance between demand and investible dollars. Even factoring in the $700 billion I would collect from energy taxes, the break-even is probably still north of $250,000. As an added bonus, if the wealthiest actually had to pay for bullshit like farm subsidies, and wasteful defense spending, you better believe that we would see waste in government being eliminated, pronto. If we controlled healthcare costs to eliminate the $700 billion hole that I am plugging and elminated wasteful spending, we could probably get the top marginal rate down to 40%. Fact is, seattle, that your idea of a sound tax system, call it libertarian lite, has all the wrong incentives in all the wrong places. It is a very, very poor structure for a dynamic economy, and as a matter of justice, it stinks to heaven. What the hardcore conservative/libertarians want is even worse, much, much worse. You have to get over the idea that tax rates can derived from some kooky philosophy called "objectivism" or even from a non-kooky philosophy. The human world is social. It works best when, yes there are incentives to effort, but overall everyone who works has a decent outcome for a full-day's work.

- roidubouloi

December 31, 2010 at 8:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"3) FACT: Tim Teeter claims these luxury items are mandatory for even the poorest person seeking a job" Fact:I claimed no such thing. I said that having a phone is a necessity, and that for some people that means a cell phone; and that internet access is increasingly necessary for any sort of middle class aspirations. Cable TV is certainly a luxury we could all probably do without. But eliminating all of these things, even taken together, will still not provide decent insurance for a family. I might add that any sort of super-high deductible plan that such money might buy will, in fact, hurt poorer families hardest, since they by definition can't afford the deductibles. High deductible plans work best, in fact, for precisely those families that can also afford the items seattleeng listed.

- timteeter

January 1, 2011 at 1:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

seattleeng: "2) FACT: A living wage is minimally defined as including the cited luxury items (cellphone, cable, etc)" It is? By whom? And citing one person or organization who says it does not make it a fact; it makes it a fact that one person or organization said so. (And it's arguable that home Internet access is a necessity these days since email is a common form of communication that many employers rely on for their employees. And in many parts of the country, a car is a necessity for finding and getting to and from work. I'd probably cut out cable TV, though.) "Yes, I do consider this punative and redistributive. Because it would mean that the top ~20% are earning perhaps 50% of the money but paying some 90% of the taxes?" Because it's redistributive does not make it punitive. If we believe, as you apparently do, that society should provide a basic floor for certain services (education, health care), then those services will be provided for people who would not be able or expected to pay for them. That difference has to be made up by others. A progressive system is a necessary consequence of those policy choices, not a deliberate attempt to punish those who have done well. "I also believe it would lead many to just quit working." At some point, increasing taxation leads to diminished revenues by decreasing incentives. But the Clinton tax hikes would seem to show that we're nowhere near those rates. I didn't see anyone quitting because the federal tax on the top portion of their income was 39.6%. "Do you agree the EU taxes on the middle class are MUCH MUCH higher than US taxes on the middle class?" Is that the right question to be asking? I think the data is incomplete because it does not include information on income distribution. A median number may not mean much because we cannot assume income follows a bell curve. A society may have generally low incomes except for those at the very top, in which case the median could be far below what we would call "middle class," and which would require higher taxes on the wealthy to provide basic services to all (since even the median income households would not be making enough to contribute significantly to the cause). If income distribution is fairly flat, then one wouldn't expect a big difference in the effective tax rates of the middle and higher income households since the difference in their incomes wouldn't be so large to begin with. "Everyone here wants what the EU has, but nobody here has the courage to understand how they pay for it." Actually, they don't pay for it with regard to health care--or, to put it otherwise, they pay far less than we do for it. It's a bit misleading to just divide costs and put it into increased taxes because it neglects the costs of premiums and co-pays that our peer nations (not just those in the EU) don't have. When everything is considered, most of our peer nations cover everyone, get comparable health care results, and spend a third less to half as much as a percentage of GDP than we do. So if we did do what they do, we might raise taxes but families would still spend less overall and so be left with more money. Consequently, I'm not sure the health care example really makes the point you want it to. What I think you're arguing is that many of those who can afford cell phones and cable TV can also afford to be taxed at a higher rate than they are now, regardless of the health care issue. But this claim still doesn't have much to do with the assertion that liberals think everyone should have the same stuff regardless of pre-tax income. By the way, it seems to me that everyone is a redistributivist to some extent. Even a flat tax is redistributivist because those who make more pay more (and I haven't met anyone who really believes in a true flat tax either, since even Steve Forbes says that lower income households should be exempt). The only non-redistributivist tax is a head tax where each person pays the same amount, and I don't see anyone advocating that system.

- dsimon

January 1, 2011 at 1:47am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

In re-reading my own last post, I note another error: understating current net income on the first $100,000 by $10,000. This puts the "break-even" point between current taxation and a system eliminates the deficit and relieves the middle class more in the neighborhood of $250,000, more than five times the median household income. I don't think this alters the conclusion at all. The reason that the top qunitile has to pay most of the income taxes is that it has, overwhelmingly, most of the discretionary income in the country. Merely comparing the percentage of pre-tax income to the percentage of taxes paid tells you almost nothing, unless you already assume, like the libertarians, that only flat taxes are just taxes. Overall, our system does have almost flat taxes, in the neighborhood of 20%. This is why we have deficits, fragile demand, and much of the middle class furiously angry. They should be. They just don't understand enough to know whom to be angry at and the conservative/libertarian propaganda machine is doing its best to keep it that way.

- roidubouloi

January 1, 2011 at 3:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Even a head tax would be redistributive (in the sense we, but not roid, are using the term here), unless you assume we all consume public services in equal measure. Dhurtado

- NR143296

January 1, 2011 at 12:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

dsimon writes: "And citing one person or organization who says it does not make it a fact; it makes it a fact that one person or organization said so" I've shown you a VERY low living wage (~$10/hr) estimate by a group that included internet, cable, etc., and I've referred you to much broader estimates (Harvard) that don't go into as much detail but are substantially greater that $10/hr (Harvard was around $20/hr fora living wage). And we have Tim Teeter stating the same thing. Please don't pretend there is a lack of evidence here. Progressives overwhelming claim a living wage MUST include things that weren't readily available to millionaires just 25 years ago AND are considered luxury items by most of the world. Remember, 80% of the world doesn't have internet. If you want to refute that, then find a living wage organization that does not include cellphone and interent and all the other things I listed. "because it's redistributive does not make it punitive. " Of course not. But you must agree that exceeding the highest effective tax rate currently in the world by 20 or 25% must come into range for being punitive. " But the Clinton tax hikes would seem to show that we're nowhere near those rates" Clinton raised effective tax rates by about 1.5% over where Bush had them. Roid is talking about raising them some 30% beyond that. Do you really not understand this? Seriously, it is 10 to 15 times HIGHER than Clinton raised them. It's not just a little bit. It's off the charts. " I think the data is incomplete because it does not include information on income distribution." Then look it up. Don't feign ignorance to avoid the question. See the last link to see OECD data. Yes, the rest of the world has income distributions close to ours (in terms of how much the wealthy get), but we tax our wealthy are MUCH MUCH MUCH higher rates. And we tax our middle class at much much lower rates. Study the data and then answer the question: Does the EU tax their middle class at much higher rates? "Actually, they don't pay for it with regard to health care--or, to put it otherwise, they pay far less than we do for it" Not for the exact same thing. Outcomes in Europe for cancer are far below the US. Drugs that we routinely use in the US aren't used in Europe due to cost. Yet Europe is facing the same runaway price problems we are. And US patients visit the doctor 9-10 times per year, while EU patients only 5-6. McKinsey has done the definitive study here. Read it and learn. They normalize for everything, and you can really see what the differences are. "What I think you're arguing is that many of those who can afford cell phones and cable TV can also afford to be taxed at a higher rate than they are now, regardless of the health care issue. But this claim still doesn't have much to do with the assertion that liberals think everyone should have the same stuff regardless of pre-tax income." I am arguing that funding for health-care-for all must come from the same place that it does in other countires: Our middle class. Our wealthy are already paying more than their fair share in taxes. No matter how you measure it. Yes, the will have to pay more too. But the largest chunk of funding must come from the middle class. They are currently paying much less than the rest of the world. And our middle class has come to enjoy a standard of living that the middle class in the rest of world cant' even imagine. Yes, including the EU. And yet we can't be bothered to do without a cellphone, or 2 vacations per year, or just one car, or a smaller house, etc, etc. And that is really the problem. Our middle class ignores mandatory items like health care, and then spends their money on toys and credit card bills, all the while trying to justify their lack of zero savings. http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/23856.html http://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/rp/healthcare/accounting_cost_healthcare.asp

- seattleeng

January 1, 2011 at 12:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I wrote: "Tim Teeter claims these luxury items are mandatory for even the poorest person seeking a job" TimTeeter then writes: "Fact: I claimed no such thing" On page one you wrote: "In today's world, having a phone (cell or otherwise), computer, functioning car, and internet access (though maybe not cable) are becoming essential to holding, or even aspiring to, a decent paying job." OK, so if you are saying that a family making under, say, $50K or $60K, with cable TV, internet and cellphone (and landline), that have opted to NOT buy their own insurance in some form, are frivolously wasting their money? If you are, then I think we're in agreement.

- seattleeng

January 1, 2011 at 12:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roid: "Today, someone earning $100,000, including the employer portion of payroll taxes, has a tab of $12,000 for payroll taxes, " Payroll taxes are not taxes. The person gets all that money back in spades. Today, every single penny you and I contribute to SS is returned to us. If we make a lot of money, then we see an effective rate of return around 1.5%. If we make very little money, then we see a rate of return around 6%. That 6% figure isn't too bad! Similarly, everything we pay into Medicare comes back to us. The AP just published a report yesterday that showed if we earn $90K on our last year before retirement, then we've payed in about $114K, and then pull out $355K. Again, it all came back. And then some. So, please, drop this notion that SS and Medicare are taxes. They are forced retirement plans. They are no more taxes than my 401K plan is a tax. A person earning $100K is very close to an 8% federal tax rate (top of 4th quintile). On top of that there is state/local, a slide of the corp tax, etc. So, a person earning $100K keeps roughly 88% of their money. Some of it will be stuck into savings for him to use as he wishes down the road. But still he keeps 88% of what he earns. That is root problem today Roid. In the EU, that guy would see an effective tax rate of 25-40%, depending on country. In the US, he sees just 8% tax (plus local, plus his share of corp, etc). The OECD sees our middle class earner having a tax rate of 11.9% ==OECD Effective Tax Rates on Median Earners== US: 11.9% UK: 27.1% Germany: 35.7% Finland: 38.4% France: 41.7% See the problem? We want EU style social net without their taxes. If we want their social programs, our middle class will need to pull their weight as they do in the EU

- seattleeng

January 1, 2011 at 1:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roid writes: "What you do not seem to get is that the reason that middle class taxes are so much higher in the EU is not just that they get more services, such as health care, that the middle class here still has to pay for as if it were a tax. It is because income is much more evenly distributed there" No, it's not. Slightly better, but not at all even. The top 10% earn 33% of all the market income in the US. In the UK they earn 32.3%. In Germany they earn 29.2%. In Sweden, France, Finland it's around 26%. In Canada it's around 30%. All of these nations have a fairly large slice going to the top 10%. See previously referenced OECD data.

- seattleeng

January 1, 2011 at 1:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

seattleeng, what YOU wrote on the first page is "If they have prioritized a computer, a new car (or two?) every 5 years, a cell phone, cable TV and internet access over health care, dinner out once a week, is it true that they cannot really afford health care?" I would submit that a) very few people who have all those things lack insurance, which will typically be acquired through their employment, b) yes, those who can afford such things can likely get some form of insurance, though not necessarily truly adequate coverage (hence the mandate), c) that these are not the people for whom the health care law was designed, d) some, but not all, of these things qualify as "frivolous luxuries," and that e) even if you eliminated the truly frivolous, that would still not provide sufficient funds to purchase adequate health insurance to cover a family, currently running at about $14K/year. Among the "frivolous" I suppose would include dinner out and cable TV. Among the not-frivolous I would include a car and some form of phone. Access to the internet from home falls into a gray area, as cars once did, but is increasingly becoming an integral part of a middle-class home.

- timteeter

January 1, 2011 at 4:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Seattle, That is incoherent. If you want to consider transfer payments such as social security and medicare as not taxes, that's fine with me. In what sense then can you argue that people want this programs but are unwilling to pay for them? These programs have for decades generated surpluses that have been used, not as literal savings for the beneficiaries of these plans, but to subsidize the operating budget of the federal government. The result has been income taxes that have been artificially low. The Republicans, not satisfied with balance or budget surpluses due to payroll taxes (yes, they are taxes), decided to cut income taxes even further to the point where we have structural deficits. That pension and medical care are transfer payments is precisely why I suggested that they be supported with a flat 20% tax on the first $100,000 of income, plus a somewhat progressive consumption tax in the form of energy taxes, and that would be for full medical coverage for everyone. But that still leaves the Federal and state operating budgets to be paid for. In 2010, the excess of social security and medicare payments over regressive taxes is less than $100 billion out of a total deficit of nearly $1.1 trillion. The difference between income tax receipts and the operating budget is $1 trillion. This is not about social programs. It is about a parasitic wealthy class that uses government in every conceivable way to treat itself to economic rents and then won't even pay the cost of government. You insist that we cannot have the system we have without high middle class taxes, but if you want to exclude transfer payments and the taxes that support them, the fact is that we can support the entire Federal government with a 50% tax rate on AGI above $100,000, roughly the dividing line between the lower four quintiles and the top quintile. There is so much income at the top end that we don't need to tax any incomes below that. And someone earning $1 million a year would, by your definition and assuming a flat 10% state and local tax rate, have $450,000 of net income to live on. This is not a tragedy. He is not going to sit home and rock on the porch. You just make up this stuff about how we cannot afford social programs because that is the propaganda you read in the libertarian echo chamber. Clearly, we can. What we cannot afford is a wealthy class that has a hugely disproportionate share of net income, as to which: In 1980, the top 1% had 8.5% of AGI and the top 5% had 21%. And adjusted gross income is something less than a comprehensive measure of economic income at the top end. There are no forms of tax shelter for wage-earners. 2008, the top 1% had 20% of AGI (down from 23% on 2007 due to recession impact on gains) and the top 5% had 35%. Meanwhile, the average tax rate of the top 1% declined from 34.5% in 1980 to 23.3% in 2008. For the top 5%, the average tax rate declined from 26.9% to 20.7% in the same period. This has further exacerbated the income shift that results in larger measure from our trade, labor, monetary, and fiscal policies. Although AGI and NDP are not quite the same thing (more of the income is excluded from NDP to get to AGI), let's assume that the top 5% has 35% of NDP, which would be an understatement. That comes to $4.55 trillion. There are 100 million households. Therefore, this income is that of 5 million households. $100,000 per household as an exclusion enjoyed by everyone is $500 billion. That means that the top 5% actually has enough economic income to pay for the whole Federal operating budget of $2 trillion at a 50% tax rate for income over $100,000. That is how fantastically skewed income is in the US. You are simply incorrect that we need high middle class taxes in the US. We don't because of the skewness of income. I leave it to you to figure out how deep into the pool you would have to go in Europe to pay for government with a flat 50% marginal rate. I cannot keep checking your numbers.

- roidubouloi

January 1, 2011 at 10:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roid, since you ignore my data, can you please find your own source of data on: 1) How much of the income do the top 10% earn in the larger EU economies? 2) What are effective tax rates on the middle class in the larger EU economies? I submit our top 10% share of income isn't too far off from most of the larger EU economies, and I submit our middle class is much, much more lightly taxed than the those in the larger EU economies. If my data was wrong, I'll gladly flip my position. But my data looked pretty freaking tight.

- seattleeng

January 2, 2011 at 3:15am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html is my source for data on US income shares. Pretty reliable. It shows 46% of AGI for the top 10% in the US. Right off the bat, that impeaches your point, even assuming that your EU data are reliable. Wanna provide the source for that? The other economies you cite as having top 10% at about +/-30%. The extra 16% share in the US is, by itself, enough to cover the operating budget of the Federal government. This means that, if we taxed the upper 10% exclusively to pay for the cost of the Federal government, their after-tax share of US income would still be higher than the pre-tax share of income in those other economies. And I am willing to bet their tax rates are more progressive than ours to boot. My link has the tax rates too. Objectively, seattle, your point that we either require or ought to have, in light of our excessive skewness of income, significant middle class taxes to support the operation of the Federal government simply does not hold any water. Plus, be creating a huge imbalance between consumption demand and investible funds, we destabilize our economy and reduce social mobility. There is no reality-based case to be made for your views on taxation. After the smoke and fog have been cleared away, you are left with only your quasi-religious libertarian philosophy. Like I said, all the libertarians should be sent to Wyoming and kept there to build their libertarian dream. To the rest of humanity, it would look like hell on earth.

- roidubouloi

January 2, 2011 at 11:16am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

My source on the data is OECD, which presumably went through enormous amounts of work to get it apples to apples for a world comparison. The income tax data you cite does looks at PRETAX, so it ignores the redistribution that occurs due to tax, and it ignores benefits that would bring up the low-end. Do you have a source of data that considers the share our top 10% get AFTER all the redistributing is done? That's really what we're interested in here, right?

- seattleeng

January 2, 2011 at 11:39am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

But do you have a link Easy to answer your question from the tables in the article I linked showing average tax rates by income segment and income shares. The total average tax rate for 2008, their last year, was 12.24%. For the top 10%, it was 18.71%. Their pre-tax income share (based on AGI) was 45.77%. You tax (1 - Rate) for the income segment over (1 - Rate) for the whole, multiplied by the pre-tax income share and you get after-tax income share. (1 - .1871)x.4577/(1 - .1244) = .4240. Thus, the top 10% in the US had an after-tax share of after-tax AGI of 42.4%. As I have pointed out to you before, AGI is several trillion dollars less than Net Domestic Product. It is overwhelmingly likely that the shares of what is not included in AGI, such as corporate income and economic income that escapes taxation due to the tax law definitions, is even more heavily skewed to the top end. Accordingly, the likelihood is that the top 10% have even more than 42.4% of NDP, probably in the neighborhood of 50%. The bottom 50% had a mere 13% of US AGI. There is nothing to compare to this amongst wealthier countries in Europe. Their pre-tax income is less skewed and I will bet their taxes are much more progressive with a more significant leveling effect than ours. The top 10% has something like 16 times the after-tax household income of the bottom 50%.

- roidubouloi

January 2, 2011 at 12:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You can see the OECD data at the link below. You don't have to purchase it I have discovered. But you cannot print it. It is an excellent resource. The OECD considers market income in the table I referenced. This is table 4.5 on page 107. They define market income as (on page 99): Wages + Salaries + Self Employment Income + Property Income + Pensions = Market Income. Now, with that definition out of the way tell me why you are suspect of OECD data that indicates the top 10% in the this country earn 33% of the market income? Don't you think when striving to make a fair comparison they would have considered what you are bringing up? I mean, that is their job. Right? It might be that they aren't referring exactly to what you are referring to, but good grief, I'd at least expect them to compare fairly between the countries. We're back to where we were last time. I'm sorry, but unless you can find a credible agency that has attempted to normalize the comparison that agree with your assertions, your assertions are really just the assertions of some random guy on the internet with motive. Either you can find an economist SOMEWHERE that has show the wealth distribution comparison between various countries, or you can't. Sounds like you can't, and you refuse to accept the OECD data (which does show the comparison we need to really debate this), is that right? http://browse.oecdbookshop.org/oecd/pdfs/browseit/8108051E.PDF dont eat the link.dont eat the link.dont eat the link.dont eat the link.dont eat the link.dont eat the link.dont eat the link.dont eat the link.dont eat the link.dont eat the link.dont eat the link.dont eat the link.dont eat the link.dont eat the link.dont eat the link.dont eat the link.dont eat the link.

- seattleeng

January 2, 2011 at 10:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Is this where we end? My assertion that the top 10% in the US and EU both earn about the same slice of the income pie, and my assertion that the middle class in the EU pay massively higher taxes than the middle class in the US....You leave these unchallenged? This is important because it tells us where we are headed with our larger social programs, especially health care: Substantially higher taxes on the middle class. If we DON'T have substantially higher taxes on the middle class, we will be the only OECD nation that has avoided them. And alas, back to my critique of health care: Let's call it what it is, and pay for it up front. Instead, this president passed another unfunded mandate that will have to be addressed down the road. Death by a thousand cuts.

- seattleeng

January 3, 2011 at 12:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm not done, but I am travelling and have to wait until I get home. But one might ask, of what relevance is the fact that European countries have higher middle class taxes if our income distribution and level of government services is such that we don't need any middle class income taxes at all? Are we obliged to have them because they don't, even if we don't need them? They also have lower income so a comparable level of services requires a larger share of their output. So what? What does that prove that ought to concern us? Whatever the OECD method, if it reaches a different conclusion than the Tax Foundation analysis of US income tax returns, something important is being left out.

- roidubouloi

January 3, 2011 at 1:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

OK, I do enjoy these, and I have re-aligned positions based on our discussions over the last year. I am always willing to learn new data. If there's a new forum you'd like to move to, some place that we can post HTML text and data, I'd be all for that too. I think the relevance of the EU middle class taxes really points to the end game here. In other words, we cannot fund all these social safety nets UNLESS we also have high taxes on everyone, because the there is no existence proof anywhere in the world that it can be done. Every OECD country with "free" health care also has huge taxes on their middle class. We must acknowledge here that our middle class taxes are extraordinarily low. That is a very good thing. And that is really the big question. It might very well be that the US middle class is OK with things as they are IF they have no more new taxes. In that case, the dem advances here are unwanted. Or it might be that the middle class is eager to pay more taxes for more services. Although polls seem to indicate "not" But the current efforts are really just trojan horses I fear. Libs demand the programs, claim it won't cost the middle class a dime, and then later when the economy cannot take any more, taxes are jacked up on the middle class, government grows, and libs feel warm inside. Let me ask this: If ObamaCare will result in EU-style taxes on our middle class, are you still for ObamaCare as written? Of course, if ObamaCare results in no new taxes on middle and upper middle class, and only modest increases on top 5%, then I'm all for it too IF it can control costs (which it probably can't as written...but...)

- seattleeng

January 3, 2011 at 2:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Seattle, Now I am unpacking and putting things in order so still not enough time to sift more data. However, the point about universal healthcare meaning higher taxes does not make a lot of sense. Healthcare has to be paid for one way or the other. The cost doesn't go up because it is financed with a levy rather than by writing a check to an insurer or the healthcare provider. Universal healthcare affords the opportunity to control costs, without which we are cooked economically, and to provide equal access by charging those with a lot of income more and subsidizing the cost for those at the bottom. You can do that with a tax, not with a private market (except in the case of higher education where there is a sliding scale based on income). If I end up with the same care at a lower cost in taxes than what I am paying in insurance premiums, why exactly should it matter that it is a tax rather than a premium? Matters not to me.

- roidubouloi

January 4, 2011 at 2:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Seattle, once again it appears that you don't understand what you are reading. I looked at the OECD document you linked. I have not found, yet, any tables with the data you cite, but if you look at the charts in the first chapter, they all show that income disparity in the US is enormous compared to the OECD average. So, what they hell are you talking about?

- roidubouloi

January 6, 2011 at 12:01am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close