Bruce Benidt
Jon Austin
tcarideo
Ellen Mrja
Mike Keliher
Joe Loveland
One of the most effective things anyone in a debate can do is use credible third parties to make their points for them, especially when the third party is an ally of your opponent.
Well, in the waning days of the presidential campaign, Barack Obama is being called a socialist by John McCain, Sarah Palin and Joe the Pawn, because he is calling for America’s wealthiest citizens to pay the level of taxes they paid in the Clinton years, so that middle income families can get a tax cut.
To defend the policy, Obama need look no further than John McCain’s self-described “hero:”
“We grudge no man a fortune in civil life if it is honorably obtained and well used. It is not even enough that it should have been gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community. … The really big fortune, the swollen fortune, by the mere fact of its size, acquires qualities which differentiate it in kind as well as in degree from what is possessed by men of relatively small means. Therefore, I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and … a graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against evasion, and increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the estate.”
Theodore Roosevelt
In the closing days of the campaign, Obama needs to employ a credible third party for corroboration on this issue. He should let McCain argue with Teddy.
Or if that doesn’t work, Obama should let McCain argue with someone even closer to McCain’s heart:
Student: Why is that some like my father who goes to school for 13 years gets penalized in a huge tax bracket because he’s a doctor.
McCain: I think you’re questioning the fundamentals of a progressive tax system where people who make more money pay more in taxes than a flat across-the-board percentage. I think it’s to some degree because we obviously believe that wealthy people can afford more. We have over the years, beginning with John F. Kennedy, reduced some of those marginal tax rates to make them less onerous. But I really believe that when you look at the tax code today, the very wealthy, because they can afford tax lawyers and all kinds of loopholes, really don’t pay nearly as much as you think you do when you just look at the percentages. And I think middle income Americans, working Americans, when you count in payroll taxes, sales taxes, mortgage, uh, all of the taxes that working Americans pay, I think you would think that they also deserve significant relief in my view.”
…Student: Aren’t we getting closer and closer to, like, socialism and stuff?
McCain: Here’s what I really believe: That when you are reach a certain level of comfort there is nothing wrong with paying somewhat more, but at the same time it shouldn’t be totally out of proportion…”
- Loveland
Filed under: Communications | Tagged: Barack Obama, credible third party, John McCain, progressive taxation, quote, socialist, tax cut, Theodore Roosevelt
The Teddy thing is indeed a good argument for Obama to make, being that McCain has declared him a hero. But is McCain, in declaring Teddy a hero, compelled to agree with everything the man said?
As for the video of McCain himself, tell me if I’m being an apologist or if there’s some logic here: Isn’t it possible that McCain can indeed believe there’s a moral justification for a progressive income tax (as he seems to explain in the video, from Oct. 2000) but that, in tougher times when some economic stimulation is needed (like now, maybe), it makes sense to reduce the high rates paid by the wealthy?
One can disagree with that approach — cutting taxes for the wealthy — but the above scenario doesn’t strike me as inconsistent in the least.
But remember, McCain and Palin are saying that cutting taxes for one group but increasing for another is not just a bad idea during an economic downturn, they are saying it is on it’s face radical “socialism.” Casting such a wide net catches a lot of politicians not typically considered socialists. That’s the point I wish Obama would make, using Republican third parties as evidence. “I’m for the same thing as Teddy Roosevelt, Bill Clinton and John McCain, back when he actually was a maverick.”
If McCain uses the defense you mention — that he is a mere Situational Socialist, opposing socialism in bad times and only becoming a socialist in good times — that strikes me as a tough one to sell.
And given that the economy was very strong with the more progressive Clinton-era tax structure and very weak in the wake of the trickle down shifts of the Bush/McCain-era, McCain’s notion of economic stimulus seems backwards.
Being fundamentally apolitical for much of my adult life, truly fascinated by the Crowd’s analysis of communications as this campaign has unfolded. “On the Media” today takes us inside the Bill Clinton War Room–clips from Carville, Matlin and Perot’s guy Frank Luntz. Great listening in the illuminating context you’ve created.
Meanwhile, in perhaps the most predictable event of the campaign, Joe the Plumber today endorsed McCain, again called Obama a socialist, and threw in an Israel-related attack for good measure.
Is it “cutting taxes for one group but increasing for another” they are calling socialism, or are they hammering on the more general idea of “spreading the wealth around” as being socialism? Maybe that’s splitting hairs.
And I don’t mean to imply that McCain is or should be a “situational socialist” with views that shift with the times. I was simply suggesting that he might believe that a progressive tax is not socialist but rather morally justified, but that cutting taxes — perhaps especially on the big tax payers — can serve a purpose.
From Teddy Roosevelt to John McCain Version 2000, the whole idea of a progressive tax system has always been to distribute wealth. McCain knows that (see quote). That’s the whole idea. If that’s not what was intended by Teddy (see quote) and all who came after him, we would have a flat tax instead of a progressive tax.
When Bush cut taxes for the wealthiest much deeper than for the non-wealthy, and left the consequent deficit bill for our kids, wasn’t wealth spread around, both between classes and between generations? So, is Bush a socialist too, or is spreading the wealth around only “socialism” if the non-wealthy benefit from the spreading?
If anyone believes the U.S. tax code as currently configured is not designed to favor the wealthy over the working class in an inequitable manner, he/she is suffering from delusions.
(Also, McCain has been a “situational Republican.” That has been his Achilles heel throughout this election. I thought Loveland’s line–”back when McCain really was a maverick”–was right on target.)
What frightens the shit out of America is liberals’ obsession to use taxation to equalize social outcomes rather than taxing to achieve some level of government service.
P.S. By the way, what happen to tax revenues after Reagan cut taxes?
Answer: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v504/ZendoDeb/misc/TaxRevenue.gif
But there’s a difference, isn’t there?
One — progressive taxes — means the more you make, the more you pay. End.
The other — redistribution — means, bluntly, taking from some to give to others.
I suppose in the progressive tax situation, taking more money from the wealthy to give, say, roads to those who pay little or no taxes can look a lot like redistribution, but roads are for everyone. Redistribution is for the recipient.
As for your Bush example, isn’t it more a case of “now we’re paying less” than it is “we’re redistributing money upward”?
EMM, I would hope the tax code is configured to favor the wealthy. They’ve either earned it or are lucky enough to be related to someone who did, neither of which warrants punishment.
But do the non-wealthy deserve to punished, you ask? Absolutely not. But lacking success or luck is not punishment, at least not in the same way being deprived of the fruits of your labor is punishment.
EMM:
You are absolutely correct–the tax code is horribly skewed to those who can take advantage of it–those who employ attorneys and accountants and can adjust their income, investments, etc. to make the most of the numerous loopholes, “incentives”, and flat out mistakes and gifts to various interests, etc.
What needs doing is another version of the Bradley-Gephardt tax simplification act of 1986 (reagan signed it)–cut out lots of loopholes, simplify and lower the rates, and end up with just 3 graduated rates, and a very few deductions. (and this time, let’s get rid of the really big one–the home mortgage interest deduction)
“Socialism?” “Equality of outcome?” My goodness, we’re talking about returning to the taxation level of the Clinton years, a mighty fine time for capitalism, not the taxation level of Sweden. I think we need to take a deep breath and keep things in proper perspective.
Mike, we’re going to have to agree to disagree. Chunks of my brain have been redistributed all over the floor.
As Jesse Jackson once said, “The point is moot!”
Strikes me that none of this tinkering with the tax code has even the tiniest relationship to actual socialism.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
Main Entry:
so·cial·ism Listen to the pronunciation of socialism
Pronunciation:
\ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\
Function:
noun
Date:
1837
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.
Mike: You and I don’t see the numbers the same way, I guess. Numbers only have meaning in relation to another number.
If you argue that the top whatever percent make x percent of the income –or pay y percent of the taxes,– that statement has no meaning to me. It has meaning if you tell me what percentage of their income they are paying.
Clearly, when I look through the tax system in this way, the code was written and has been tweaked repeatedly (due to the lobbying efforts of those who could afford it) to favor “the wealthy.”
Also, Mike, I reject your idea that people who are lucky enough to be born into a family where they inherit all of their wealth shouldn’t be “punished,” if by that you mean taxed. Inherited wealth certainly SHOULD be taxed, and taxed even higher than tit was for the original”wealthy” family member who earned it.
Otherwise, isn’t that just welfare?
Why all the obsession with what OTHER people have? Live your life as you see fit. Capitalism is not a zero sum game. Because some win does not mean some lose because of the winners.
Funding K-12 education and student loan subsidies redistributes wealth from old to younger and non-parent to parent. Paying Social Security payroll taxes redistributes wealth from poorer to richer. Giving tax deductions for having kids redistributes wealth from non-parents to parents. Funding commuter highways redistributes wealth from non-suburbanites to suburbanites. Funding farm subsidies redistributes wealth from urban to rural. Giving fat home mortgage deductions redistributes wealth from renters to homeowners. Deficit spending redistributes wealth from our generation to future generations. Paying sales taxes redistributes wealth from poorer to richer.
Just about everything government does has redistributive effects. But the only time we hear the word tossed around is when non-wealthy people stand to benefit.
Ok, now I really AM done!
Mike says: “I would hope the tax code is configured to favor the wealthy. They’ve either earned it or are lucky enough to be related to someone who did, neither of which warrants punishment.
… But lacking success or luck is not punishment, at least not in the same way being deprived of the fruits of your labor is punishment.”
Mike, restoring former tax rates is not depriving the top 5 percent of fruits they can actually eat. Progressive taxation might take another bushel of apples off the trucks lined up at the gate. If that’s “punishment,” your pain threshold is highly tuned.
I like Joe’s response, but would like to add another way to look at “redistribution of wealth.” Progressive taxation diminishes the concentration of wealth and the concentration of power that tends to follow. If all this concentration meant was that we’d eventually have more philanthropic institutions and grandchildren who become artists, maybe it would be harmless.
But it has also meant the income growth for many Americans has stalled out.
Over the last decade, the concentration of wealth has accelerated in America, with high growth and the top and no real growth in income at the bottom. (There’s probably a regression of wealth for the bottom half of the population when net worth is figured in.) The more wealth accumulates, an individual earns more fruits for less labor.
“Fruits of your labors” has great resonance to Joe Sixpack, who does labor and is not seeing the fruits — but not because of the tax code.
High earners make the big bucks not by laboring more (at least proportionately more) but by taking a piece off the top of Joe’s labor. Another way is by accumulating capital (through inheritance, borrowing, the aforementioned Joes) and risking it. Risk may make them sweat, but it’s not quite the same thing as labor, and somewhere there’s a Joe, paying interest, working for less or losing on the roll of the dice. And when they have enough, they can influence the law or manipulate the market or rewrite their corporate rules to reward themselves with more.
This upward fruit shoveling has diminishing benefits for society, though it has obvious appeal to the guys who own the baskets. They have done a masterful job of convincing the shovelers that the only thing holding them back from getting their own apple farm is the government.
How ’bout those Vikings, eh?
Yes, let’s go to the Vikings. I oppose redistribution of footballs via turnovers and penalties.
Here are today’s McCain attack ads on this issue. Maybe I’m overreacting in my current neurotic election week state, but I don’t feel like Obama is responding very well to this issue.
Another McCain quote, from back when he was a Socialist redistributionist Marxist mole:
“I am disappointed that the Senate Finance Committee preferred instead to cut the top tax rate of 39.6% to 36%, thereby granting generous tax relief to the wealthiest individuals of our country at the expense of lower- and middle-income American taxpayers.” [McCain Senate floor statement, May 21, 2001]
Another McCain quote about the Bush tax cuts that Obama could use, from back when McCain was a Socialist redistributionist Marxist mole:
“I am disappointed that the Senate Finance Committee preferred instead to cut the top tax rate of 39.6% to 36%, thereby granting generous tax relief to the wealthiest individuals of our country at the expense of lower- and middle-income American taxpayers.” [McCain Senate floor statement, May 21, 2001]