<p>w1cked - you should read the flat earth guy’s analysis, too. I imagine you’d find him convincing as well. For the rest of us, here’s a commentary on w1cked’s favorite “science” website: <a href=“http://skepdic.com/refuge/junkscience.html[/url]”>http://skepdic.com/refuge/junkscience.html</a></p>
<p>You didn’t bother to look at the guy’s data or his articles. You smeared with innuendo. Way to be a political hack. Or maybe I should go to Greenpeace and PETA’s websites for some ‘science’ lessons, mate?</p>
<p>Carlmom, I believe the operative term is “truthiness”.</p>
<p>Carlmom,</p>
<p>I’m afarid I don’t know who that Colbert fellow is, but I suspect he is on Comedy Central which apparently is the unfortunate source of news to many people these days.</p>
<p>As to my “disdain for the facts”, perhaps rather than make a general and unsupported critique, you can point to the facts that I have shown a disdain for? You know … perhaps provide some facts to support your allegations? All I have shown is how the “facts” as used by both kluge and oog do not support their views and in fact support the opposite view. So, perhaps you should direct your critiques at them. But, of course that won’t happen, for to do so would require an open and fair mind.</p>
<p>FF, I asked you a simple question:
You elected not to answer that question, instead giving a song and dance worthy of a politician. So let’s add to your “disdain for the facts” your “disdain for honest dialog.”</p>
<p>kluge, I think I answered your question and not only answered it but gave you my rationale. The fact that you were not able to understand my answer is not surprising. What is a bit surprising is that you let yourself sink to the level of drive-by sniping of people like Carlmom.</p>
<p>So spell it out for me, FF, is your answer “yes” or “no”? Because I didn’t get either one from you, just a lot of tap-dancing.</p>
<p>
This is pretty easy. We shouldn’t “have the nation’s wealth” do anything. First of all, it’s not “the nation’s wealth.” It’s the product of individual enterprise. Second, we should neither “have” the “nation’s wealth and income concentrated” nor should we “have it spread around.” It is what it is, and it does what it does. Government imposed “fairness” fails every time it’s tried.</p>
<p>Very good response Driver. I do not like it either when people treat money or property or wealth as collectives.</p>
<p>
I asked this same question awhile back … OK, you just made the case for the tax cut … the money is not the government’s it belongs to the people who earned. Then GWB and the congress designed a tax cut and in designing that tax cut they, quite explicitly, designed who would get the cuts … and the cuts went disproportionately to the wealthest American. Why not a give the money back to the poor? Why not give the money back proportionately evenly? Why give it back mostly to the wealthy?</p>
<p>Stephen Colbert Is on Comedy Central right after Jon Stewart. He parodies O’Reilly and he used to be on Jon Stewart’s show. They both provide the much needed comic relief from an administration gone bad but somehow I don’t think Bush supporters would find it fun.</p>
<p>The proportionality issue has also been addressed. The poor don’t pay income taxes, the middle class pays a small amount, and if you don’t like FICA, blame FDR and the Democrats for creating the third rail. We shouldn’t have that either–and by that I mean neither the tax nor the “benefits.” President Bush had hoped to change the FICA problem, but as Sen. Reid crowed, “we killed Social Security reform.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why give back money proportionately evenly? If you want this, are you also a proponent of the flat tax? Seems like you’re setting double standards, and ultimately punishing the hard working.</p>
<p>And don’t the poor get income tax rebates or whatever? Some system where they get most or all money back…</p>
<p>And why not give it back to the wealthy? They pay the lion’s share of the nation’s taxes. I don’t have exact figures, but that shouldn’t be too hard to look up.</p>
<p>
I’m sorry driver, but that’s terribly naive. Government policies shift wealth around all the time - always have, always will. If the money’s going in the direction you like, you just act like nobodies doing anything, and it’s just “natural” But it isn’t. It is what it’s made to be. Example: shifting the burden of taxes a little bit from income taxes to sales taxes (as has happened over the past 25 years) makes the poor poorer and makes it harder for them to become less poor, while preserving the wealth of the more affluent. A more concrete example: If a highway is built serving an area, landowners in that area will see an increase in wealth. Rezoning land from agricultural to shopping mall will benefit the landowner and Walmart, and hurt the owners of downtown shops. If a municipal parking lot is built downtown instead, the owners of those shops will benefit. </p>
<p>You guys seem to think that restoring a historical level of income distribution means some sort of heavy-handed gestapo tactics. Nothing could be further from the truth. The things which caused the increase in concentration of wealth were numerous and subtle, and what would need to be done to undo that shift is similarly subtle. </p>
<p>But the first step is recognizing that it happened. And by “it”, I mean that there was a broad-based adjustment of small and for the most part unnoticed policies which benefitted the wealthy and cost the poor and middle class, starting about 25 years ago. All we really need to do is adjust them back to the way they were before. So who is the “conservative” now?</p>
<p>Kluge, the problem with your “historical level of income distribution” is that it started “about 25 years ago.” Your baseline is woefully shortsighted. Any conservative would agree that the fundamental role of the government in the economy is to provide a stable framework of law, fiscal, and monetary policy within which a free market economy can run. And there have always been disagreements (see: Andrew Jackson) about such issues as a National Bank and tariffs. However, the permanent income tax with redistribution as a goal is historic only in the sense that it began last century–along with most of the failed socialistic policies that have sputtered along into the 21st century. Just because something is relatively old doesn’t make it good.</p>
<p>
I know the answer and it is easy to find … in raw dollars the wealthiest Americans pay the most … as a % of income the total federal tax burden (income tax, federal sales taxes like gas, and FICA) the tax system is regressive with the poorest American’s paying the highest percentage of their income to the feds. </p>
<p>Why not give it to the wealthy? They are paying the lowest % of their income to the feds … the cuts implemented by GWB widened this gap. Personally, if we are going to implement a tax cut I’d start the tax relief with those tax payers who are paying the highest % of their income.</p>
<p>
what double standard? I’m not clear how advocating focussing tax cuts on the poor or at least proportionally is a double standard … please explain? Thanks!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And so what? Since when are we bringing income:tax percentage into play? They are paying most, and thats all there’s to it! The poorest Americans don’t pay anything. They get rebate back from IRS, along with subsidized housing, food stamps, WIC, etc, etc</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And yet they are paying the most money. Are you trying to say we should punish they wealthy by making them pay for socialistic programs so that the poor get their ‘entitlements’? The poor are there for a good reason; they lack enterprise and hard work. And there they will stay until they change their work ethics, etc. No amount of income redistribution will redress this.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The guy who posted that we should give tax breaks evenly. Since we are not taxing evenly, why should we give tax breaks evenly? Do you not see a double standard?</p>
<p>Actually Driver, the “rising tide” lifted all the boats from at least the beginning of the 20th century, until around 1980. That’s when the trends started to diverge. My “historical pattern” is what existed for at least 80 years. (Maybe longer, but I’m not as confident in the data.)</p>
<p>If you really think that JFK’s “rising tide” concept depended on income redistribution, you need to have a look at the history of the income tax, as well as Kennedy’s tax policies.</p>
<p>I wasn’t quoting JFK. But the last time the “rising tide” lifted all boats was around the time of his administration. Newmassdad’s quote from the Financial Times:
</p>
<p>This isn’t really difficult stuff to understand, if you’re not determined to turn a blind eye to it. More from the Financial Times:
I can say from personal experience that the latter explanation for the skyrocketing compensation packages for corporate executives is valid, at least in some US corporations.</p>