text:
Elizabeth Warren's Voodoo Economics
The liberal Senate candidate sets fire to a straw man.
A. Barton Hinkle | 9.27.2011 12:00 PM
Elizabeth Warren is cheesed off.
Received wisdom says conservatives are the ones driven by anger—Republicans took the House last year because 2010 was another "year of the angry white male," and all that. But in August remarks about class warfare that have gone viral, the Democratic candidate for a Senate seat from Massachusetts is visibly seething.
That's okay; everyone gets worked up now and then, and most of us are lucky enough not to be caught on camera at the moment. Funny thing is, Warren's comments—her rage and resentment and sarcasm—have made her an overnight heroine.
In the video, she addresses an imaginary captain of industry:
"There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own," she lectures. "Nobody. You built a factory out there? Good for you! But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that maurauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory . . . .Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea—God bless! Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along."
A few points.
(1) This is a pretty powerful takedown—of a position nobody holds. Or at least nobody outside an Ayn Rand novel. If Warren can find someone who thinks he does not live in community with other people, then she might have an argument. But don't sit on a hot stove waiting.
(2) For someone who objects to the term class warfare, she sure draws a mighty bright line between "you" and "the rest of us."
(3) The question is not whether a captain of industry should pay taxes—but how much. Reasonable people can debate where to set marginal tax rates. But when the richest fifth of Americans pay 64 percent of federal income taxes while the bottom two-fifths pay less than 3 percent, the case for even greater progressivity is not beyond rational debate.
(4) Outside of a few anarchist collectives, there isn't a soul around who minds paying taxes for roads, cops, firemen, or schoolteachers. It's the jillion other things government does—from corporate welfare to the Iraq war—that people object to.
(5) Plenty of smart, well-meaning people also think even government's core functions could be delivered better and for less—just as the Obama administration has used the Dartmouth Atlas to argue for greater efficiency in medical care. E.g., since 1970 inflation-adjusted per-pupil spending in public K-12 education has doubled. Class size has been cut in half. Neither change has produced any substantial effect on academic performance. Why don't we have the equivalent of a Dartmouth Atlas for public education?
(6) Warren's remarks epitomize the caricature of a progressive as someone who loves jobs but hates employers. She implies the captain of industry is simply sponging off society and hoarding the proceeds. But hiring workers is a huge social good. So is providing a funding basis for pensions, which generally rely on stock returns. So is creating products people want. Five bucks says Warren has a smartphone and a DVR and a bunch of other modern conveniences, and that she didn't buy any of them with a gun to her head. So why is she so mad at the people who offered to sell them?
(7) Warren suggests the principle of fair play means the industrialist owes society a debt, to be repaid in steep taxes because his other contributions do not count. But this argument is one of the weakest of all the arguments for political obligation, for reasons most people can figure out after a few minutes' thought. (E.g., Suppose I mow your lawn without asking, then demand payment because it's "only fair.") Why hasn't she given them any?
(8) Perhaps, like film critic Pauline Kael, who famously didn't know anyone who had voted for Nixon, Warren doesn't know anyone who believes government and taxes should be small. And, therefore, perhaps she does not understand their reasoning. She certainly doesn't give any indication that she does.
So for the record, the reason is that—as Sheldon Richman wrote recently in The Freeman—"government is significantly different from anything else in society. It is the only institution that can legally threaten and initiate violence; that is, under color of law its officers may use physical force, up to and including lethal force—not in defense of innocent life but against individuals who have neither threatened nor aggressed against anyone else." Many of those who truly love peace prefer to live in a society where the use or threat of violence is minimized. Maybe that idea simply hasn't crossed Warren's mind.
Maybe that's why she looks like she's ready to haul off and hit someone.
A. Barton Hinkle is a columnist at the Richmond Times-Dispatch. This article originally appeared at the Richmond Times-Dispatch.
NEXT: Administration Decision Clears the Way For a Summer 2012 Supreme Court Ruling on ObamaCare's Individual Mandate
A. Barton Hinkle is senior editorial writer and a columnist at the Richmond Times-Dispatch.
Economics Campaigns/Elections Liberalism
September.27.2011 at 11:40 am
This is their answer to Martha Cokely? The stable of Democrats in Massachusetts must be pretty empty.
Eduard van Haalen
September.27.2011 at 7:42 pm
The carport used to be pretty full, but they kept driving off bridges.
June.26.2012 at 3:06 pm
I don't know what Elizabeth is trying to present on this blog.this blog has posted somewhat hypothetical thoughts. I think people will also try to get this point.
Groovus Maximus
September.27.2011 at 12:03 pm
CAPTION CONTEST:
"You only have to be this long to ride this ride!"
Short-dicked Teenage Midget
I wouldn't fuck her with your dick and blame Warty for it.
Dante Botherme
REMOVE THIS IDIOT'S COMMENTS FROM THIS WEBSITE! Or is this representative of the kinds of people (i.e. conservatives) who read this site?
I'm crushing your head, Scott Brown. I'm crushing your head.
Caption: "This is how much is left of my last nerve and you're stepping right on it."
"My clitoris was this long by age 12. It has only grown since then."
"I came this close to signing up for CPUSA membership back in my college days."
The Other Kevin
Elizabeth Warren demonstrates the size of her penis.
Go into a liberal internet forum and tell them that corporations do good. And see what happens. Good luck.
I think Warren is unable to appreciate or admit the good corporations do outside of paying taxes. Take Exxon. That is a big evil corporation for you. Well, it is not staffed by aliens. Thousands of ordinary people depend on Exxon for their jobs and retirements. Isn't that a good.
And of course, your local organic food co-op may be a great organization, but it is not going to build a giant drilling rig and go out and pump oil from beneath the North Sea. Exxon gives us all these great products that we wouldn't have otherwise. Isn't that a good too?
I don't know that any other legal invention in history has created more wealth than the corporation. It allows people to spread risk and combine their efforts in ways that were just not possible before its invention.
I guess my question to Warren would be, every time fills up her car with gas or gets on an airplane or uses her cell phone, where does she think all that stuff comes from? And doesn't she understand that making useful stuff is a much more valuable societal good than paying taxes?
I guess my question to Warren would be, every time fills up her car with gas or gets on an airplane or uses her cell phone, where does she think all that stuff comes from?
Apparently the D.C. Unicorn Factory.
OIL? Oil is melting the polar bears and destroying the planet! Oh, wait, I see what you did there . . .
I got into debates on a lefty blog over this idiot and her ridiculous rabble-rousing.
http://boingboing.net/2011/09/…..rfare.html
Barton brings up most of the points I tried to – no one out there is denying their obligation to pay for schools or cops or firemen (always the holy triumvirate). The issue is the gross expenditure and the overreach of the govt into every possible facet of our lives. The same dopes posting on that board who cry about rampant cop violence can turn around and say it's out civic duty to shovel more public money onto the very same corrupt, overwhelming public agencies.
But none of them are partisan stooges. No sir – they're the intellectual elite!
It makes your head start to hurt after 2 rounds.
shorter wingnutz
[WARRENZ] !
If only the whole world spoke English. What a shame.
FUCKER!
DO!
SPEAK!
IT?
October.4.2011 at 7:01 pm
Nativist!
It's pointless to have those discussions. Their brand of stupid is made from stupidonium. Nothing in the universe can penetrate it.
That is really true. I try to have discussions with them. But they don't even understand what has happened in the last 40 years. So you don't have anywhere to start. They will tell you things like Reagan drastically reduced the size of government. That Nixon was a radical conservative. That George W. Bush deregulated the economy. That FDR created the middle class and ended the Depression.
They really believe this shit.
You know, just once, I would like to hear the Republican Party disown Nixon in a public forum. Instead, I have to listen to the continuous monotonous drone of praise for Reagan that comes from simple-minded parrots that can't differentiate between rhetoric and action.
Meanwhile, Nixon presents a golden opportunity to disown almost everything that is wrong with the modern Republican Party. If someone would just seize on it and use it.
I will always disown Nixon. It always shocks them. Of course then I explain why I disown him. About how he created the EPA and gave Civil Rights laws teeth by making them apply to people and created the EEOC to enforce them and how he implemented wage and price controls. But then I also give him credit for ending the Vietnam war.
By this point their eyes kind of glaze over. It is just too many facts that don't fit the narrative. Their brains usually have to reboot after that.
Oso Politico
1972, the first time I was eligible to vote. I voted for Nixon – haven't voted since then for anybody.
I was in the last cohort of 18-year-olds to register for the draft in 75. As much as I hate the prick, I will always be indebted to Nixon for getting us the fuck out of Vietnam.
dr kill
I was there too, dude, a 1954 model. A lottery but no draft in 1973. I was number 28. I feel the same way about Nixon. And the RNC.
Me too. I also got a very low number (12?) and would have been drafted if they'd taken anyone that year.
Sorry, but I am denying any a priori OBLIGATION to pay for schools or cops or firemen.
Anyone who disagrees with me must be a "rabble rousing" "partisan stooge". I, of course, am intellectually pure of heart and thoroughly unbiased.
Tolly, what does it say about you if your head hurts from communicating with those who disagree with you?
wareagle
And doesn't she understand that making useful stuff is a much more valuable societal good than paying taxes?
Of course, she understands. But like any true-believing progressive, she doesn't like it because it shows positive things happening WITHOUT the heavy hand of govt and we can't have that.
She also knows that the Dem Party is utterly dependent on the stupidity of the dependency/looter class for its survival; nice bit of symbiosis there.
Actually I think she believes they should make those things for free for the benefit of society. It is that whole new socialist man thing.
Bryan C
"Actually I think she believes they should make those things for free for the benefit of society."
Yes, I think that's exactly what they believe.
Of course, "those things" are whatever "society" thinks you should need. And "for free" means you work for "society". And her operating definition of "society" is "Elizabeth Warren and people I like".
But it'll all be so efficient and fair. And in no time at all we'll see shiny new G.U.M. locations replacing those mercenary Targets and Walmarts!
A truly fascinating dichotomy, given that states and corporations are both fictional entities, created by the actions of one or more individuals, to meet a set of goals agreed upon by the incorporating parties.
What's the difference between the two? Very little. The only things that a state can do that a corporation couldn't are incarcerate or kill you.
Fo Real?
Well I agree that the entities are very similar, but those differences aren't neccesarily accurate.
A corp distributes votes based on percentage of ownership, versus he state which would ideally consider each vote once.
Besides which, what makes you think a corp isn't capable of murder? It is after all a collection of people.
Voting in a corporation is restricted to shareholders. Voting (where it exists) in a state is restricted to citizens.
And I said 'kill', not 'murder.' The two are not interchangeable.
There are few things out there that are either all good or all bad.
Why can't we appreciate the employment and mobility that the oil industry provides while also saying it's unacceptable for them to destroy the planet? Nobody should get a free ride, right?
Sorry, but liberalism is pretty much all bad. And oil companies neither "destroy the planet" nor does anyone support their doing so. They extract the key resource on which the bulk of the world runs.
No one has more to lose from environmental disasters than they do, both in economic and PR terms. It's like airlines; who loses more than they do if shoddy maintenance causes crashes? But no, liberal mindset is that we all need rules set by professional minders who know our businesses better than we do.
Let's just call liberalism for what it is: an employment program for those who cannot get jobs that produce things the public is willing to pay for. They work in govt, something we are forced to fund.
Mr. FIFY
Ten bucks says Tony owns a gas-powered vehicle.
Let's all just call each other puerile names. Maybe we can start another civil war.
Liberalism is all bad?? Liberals try to find a balance between economics and other values — like safe food and drugs and a safe environment. Is it "all bad" to have policies that restrict businesses from dumping poison in air and drinking water or try to sell fraudulent mortgages to people who can't afford to pay for them? Is it "all bad" to attempt to create policies to improve education (misguided as many have been)? Is it "all bad" to try to make policy based on the vast majority of climatology research?
(Sure, sometimes we get out of hand; but how does that make us "all bad?")
Please grow up and have some respect for those who disagree with you. You're sure making it harder for me to respect conservatives. Thank goodness for Colin Powell, Dick Lugar and Mitch Daniels. Even Tricky Dick understood the value of a good government program.
Destrudo
October.3.2011 at 11:18 am
I almost mistook this post for a serious effort, but then I read the second half and realized it was just a joke. Not bad; I laughed!
"Why can't we appreciate the employment and mobility that the oil industry provides while also saying it's unacceptable for them to destroy the planet?"
Primarily, we can't say it because they're not destroying the planet, so you'd be lying.
Strangely, that's not generally a problem for you so I'm confused as to why you don't just say it anyway.
(looks) OH YOU DO…
Cell phones, airplanes, cars, and other material goods do not teach our children or directly contribute to an infrastructure and/or institution that educates our children enabling them to have the smarts to create cell phones, airplanes, and material goods. In other countries, e.g. Mexico, you can build empires based on your oil trade, but you do so offering nothing to those at the bottom of the food chain and your roads look like they do in, well, Mexico.
Warren would agree with you, as do I, that there is no other "legal invention in history [that] has created more wealth than the corporation," but her point is that the wealth is increasingly becoming owned by a small, elitist group of individuals. She is fighting for those that comprise 90% of our population, but only hold 10% of our wealth, not the inverse.
And Warren would also (likely) argue that in order for us to maintain a society in which corporations can thrive but also with a pot-hole free road (so we can smoothly drive our corporate-funded cars) and maintain an educational system that results in a majority of the population being truly enabled to pursue the "American Dream," we MUST turn around the notion of corporations not giving back to the societal good in a BIG way, or else, this beast will collapse, top heavy, and wealth will become a long lost fantasy for 99% of this nation.
The government already seizes enough of my income to fix potholes. The fact that they are utterly incompetent at it does not make me want to pay them more.
My car is not "corporate funded". I funded it.
We have an education system that already provides more than adequate opportunity to anyone that works to take advantage. The fact that we have cultural problems that lead to many dumb, lazy students and their dumb, lazy parents believing that education is something in which all the effort is done by the teacher is the problem. My high school sucked absolute balls and had a shoestring budget, and it didn't hurt me one bit.
Good try but she is not fighting for us. She is fighting for the rich and corporations who own her. She is fighting for her own chunk of a huge govt corruption pie. The roads are built and paid for. Most bridges too, yet they still charge tolls. Balance the budget and you will have all the money currently used to pay interest to spend.
Most of the above writers missing Professor Warren's point. She's simply raising the question of what policies are best for supporting the existence of our middle class and debunking some of the myths that have led to disastrous policies.
For the past decade (at least) we've been subjected to a constant barrage of conservative mythology: Myth 1: taxes are always bad; Myth 2: reducing taxes on the wealthy grows the economy; Myth 3: rich people earned it all without any help from the government or anyone else; Myth 4: Regulation is bad. Myth, myth, myth!
Debunking Myth 1: Taxes are not always bad: they allow the building of infrastructure; they support a community structure in which society can flourish. They pay for the education of the employees needed for businesses and the economy to grow.
Debunking Myth 2: Reducing taxes on the wealthy grows the economy VERY SLOWLY; in addition to expanding some factories, the wealthy use it for many other, much less productive items such as luxuries and overseas investments. This is a rehash of the rejected theories of the 80's ? trickle-down economics, which even George H. W. Bush called "voodoo economics."
Debunking Myth 3: Substantial factors allowing people to get rich are the market ? supported by laws, courts and regulations, the infrastucture, the educated work force and the peaceful society in which we live. Perhaps the biggest factor is our large middle class, the ultimate market for most products that wealthy entrepreneurs sell. The middle class this country is largely the result of those social, educational and tax policies that enabled it to develop (and that have been under assault for the last 30 years ? the TRUE class warfare.)
Debunking Myth 4: Regulation is a basic requirement for markets to flourish ? they're like a sport's rule-book or traffic rules. Without regulation, markets would be chaotic (or predatory), businesses wouldn't know where to invest. Our air and water would rapidly return to the miserable quality of the 60s (see Texas). The lack of regulation and enforcement is what led to the bubble and collapse of 2008.
The simple truth is that entrepreneurs and the wealthy get a huge benefit from the society in which they live and work ? a benefit that is disproportionate to their numbers. Professor Warren is simply calling on the wealthy to pay for the benefits on which they've built their wealth.
If you're offended by this, it's because you've been buying into these conservative myths. You've been drinking the kool-aid.
It's time for conservatives and liberals to come back to reality. Let's develop policies in which those who benefit from our social structure pay an amount proportionate to their benefit. So that our social structure and our economy can continue in the future.
Elizabeth Warren earned my support by raising the subject, rather than falling back into the mindless mythology and rhetoric of right vs. left. Elizabeth Warren deserves the support of thinking people who want government to be based on facts rather than myths. Based on policies which support long-term social structures, rather than short term gain.
The heart of conservatism is said to be realism. Conservatives should be happy that someone is raising the level of discussion to the real issues that matter.
I'm with Liz.
500 Billion to Solindra.
Bust that Myth
Phlogistan
"I once caught a Capitalist THIS big"
And all of the reasons you list here are why she will be the next Senator from Massachusetts. Unfortunately, the majority of people in this stupid state love that crap that she's spewing.
It is just scary. How can so many people believe such nonsense? And worse yet, how can so many people who are considered to be the most educated in our society believe such nonsense?
Because it is useful to believe such nonsense.
True. It got her tenure at Harvard and perhaps a Senate seat.
Disappointed that she has morphed from reasonable opposition to Whiny Massachusetts politico.
I guess that's what it takes to get elected there.
I wish I knew. Just keep in mind, this is the state being represented by such gems as Barney Frank, Ed Markey, and John Kerry. It's probably best that in the interest of maintaining sanity we don't try to understand these people.
Frank and Markey only represent the most retarded and backward parts of the state. There are other parts of the State. And I think Kerry just gets elected because they have this idea that it is better to elect a devil who will bring home the pork than an angel who can't. Warren isn't an incumbent so she doesn't get the same respect Kerry does.
The bulk of the state population is along the east coast. That's where these guys' districts are. I agree that everyone out there is retarded and backwards. If you look at a map of the state, these people consider Worcester the western edge of the state. Most of the people west of that are still sane (not counting Northampton NTTATWTT) but we are a definite minority.
Old Soldier
I left Mass decades ago and will never return. I go back to visit family that haven't escaped yet – the place sucks worse than ever.
Sox Fan
MA has more independents voters than Democrats or Republicans. Don't stereotype the state.
The D's control the statehouse and have gerrymandered the districts though.
"MA has more people claiming to be independents than Democrats or Republicans, but they are lying."
Libertymike
Kerry and respect? What an association!
ChrisO
My political impression of Massachusetts, as a complete outsider, is that the Democrats win with an unbeatable coalition of Cambridge eggheads who "do well by doing good" (Elizabeth Warren to a T) and Southie lunkheads who are all in favor of more of that awesome Government Cheese coming their way. Reading the comments section at the Boston Globe site is quite instructive.
As an insider, that about sums it up.
There is also people like my inlaws. They are not Cambridge know it alls or Southie lunkheads. They vote Democrat more out of mindless almost religious loyalty than anything else. If you ask them why they vote Democrat even though all of their positions on particular issues are almost always contrary to the Democratic one, they will tell you that "the Democrats are for the little guy". I am not kidding. It is like the invasion of the body snatchers or something.
Yeah, they have people convinced that wealth is a zero sum game. For someone to get richer someone else has to get poorer. They think if you just take the money from the rich and give it to the poor than no one will be poor. Nevermind the disincentive to wealth creation that causes making everyone poor, and also without all the goodies the wealth created. I would think being that stupid would hurt.
Only law professors and shop stewards confuse tenure and seniority with a marketable skill.
For those without a skill, wealth is a zero sum game. If they take all my dough and give it to Warren, next year I will again have money and she will again be broke.
Give a liberal a fish and he will ask for seconds. Teach a liberal to fish and he will file for unemployment.
Old RPM Daddy
Dude, can I totally steal that line?
Brilliant & wickedly funny.
"the Democrats are for the little guy"
Good Christ Team Blue hit one out of the park when they sold the rubes this one!
Well, they were. In 1972 they decided to be for the little girl instead.
The little guys are finally figuring it out.
Sounds like you are married to one of my sisters. My parents are the same way. They were brought up thinking Democrats are for the little guy. Now they have a a 450k house and vacation to Europe twice a year, but they still think they're the little guy.
Cambridge Egghead
As a long-time resident of the People's Republic of Cambridge, let me remind you of some basic facts.
Our so-called anti-business state has a thriving economy with one of the lowest unemployment rates in the nation. (This despite the fact that we do not have a dominant industry like the oil industry which has single-handedly buoyed the economy of Texas.) My property values barely dropped in the recession. We rank as #1 or #2 in percent of residents with health insurance. Despite high real estate, healthcare and employment costs, business flock here to take advantage of our highly educated work force.
Why do we vote Democratic? Because the Democrats have delivered for forty years.
And because we eggheads are smarter than you are! As are the lunk-heads from Southie 😉
Zombie Ted
Don't forget how my family is worshiped. Oh Camelot!!!!!!!!!!!!
Federal Dog
"And worse yet, how can so many people who are considered to be the most educated in our society believe such nonsense?"
They are not the most educated; they simply have purchased a greater number of diplomas.
I wish people (not you) were smart (and educated!) enough to distinguish between being: (1) educated; (2) "diplomaed"; and (3) intelligent.
There three are logically very different, and many stupid, uneducated people have bought themselves (or had someone else buy them) diplomas.
Barack Obama would be a good example.
You are absolutely right. Our entire education system, especially the higher education system is broke. People go through these schools for decades and learn nothing but nonsense. And they are rewarded for repeating this nonsense. And what is worse, they don't seem too interested in unlearning any of it.
[SCHOOLZ] !
And the mysteries poster shows up posting in molespeak again. I wonder what the molespeak means?
i have deegree from school of hard nocks thx to me been a vetern im smart than u & old mix put to gather
More mysterious molespeak.
super derpity derp a bloo bloo bloo.
Bluto Blutarsky
"Seven years of college down the tubes!"
Her Highness Warren "Seventeen diplomas and a doctorate and I still don't understand business!"
Glen Reynolds uses the term 'credentialed' which I think fits perfectly. They are not educated in any meaningful sense – Obama thinks governments can create jobs, and that digging holes and filling them in again is productivity. I doubt if you gave him a thousand dollars, he could turn a profit with it.
We are governed by a particularly unpleasant, self-absorbed, ill-informed and utterly-inexperienced elite, who we could do without entirely.
The expression "credentialed" implies credence in their qualifications. Credence, however, is unwarranted.
This is why I use the uglier term "diplomaed": Though those people inspire no credence, they have diplomas.
[kreed-ns] ? Origin Like this word?
cre?dence
? ?[kreed-ns] Show IPA
belief as to the truth of something: to give credence to a claim. "
Sorry, you're patently wrong in your use of credence, they most certainly do BELIEVE as to the truth of their policies, it's just that they're morons and wrong.
Doktor Kapitalism
Two hundred men are building a dam in a communist country, using shovels. A foreign economist is visiting.
Economist: Why are they using shovels? Wouldn't a bulldozer be quicker?
Communist Flunky: But that would mean few jobs.
Economist: Oh, I thought you were building a dam. If you want jobs, take away the shovels and give them spoons.
I forget who I stole that from. I think I heard it on Reason TV, but that could be completely wrong.
Ghengis Khak
I love that story. The economist was Milton Friedman:
http://amateureconblog.blogspo…..poons.html
Francisco d Anconia
Because they WANT it to be that way. If Warren is correct, and industry IS the root of all evil, those who get "free" stuff at he expense of industry can justify their immoral behavior as "punishing evil", thereby easing their consciences.
When did she say that industry was the root of all evil? I believe she said "good for you" in fact.
When did paying what you owe become a bad thing?
When did economies to scale go out of fasion?
Warren acts as if people who build factories, pay no taxes for the ROADS they use or the COPS that keep Somalian pirates from eating their childrens' candy or some shit.
Paying what you owe isn't a bad thing. Paying what you owe PLUS what 47% of what everybody else owes is.
Because much of higher education in this country makes people dumber.
Haha think about your question. If all the smart educated people think believe "nonsense" maybe you're the one who just doesn't get it
Just because you've been educated doesn't mean you are smart you elitist asshole.
just "socially credentialed"
Metazoan
Her use of "rest of us" is not only an example of the way she views the world, but also incorrect: yes, the others helped pay for it, but so did YOU. In fact, in transporting the goods, paying for truck registration, fuel taxes, and tolls, the industrialists using the road probably paid more than most.
Mainer
Good point. Our company pays a fortune in registration, taxes etc for our trucks, AND the money we pay clerical staff to keep track of it all and do the filings with the various states.
An educated fool like Warren should spend a few months in a cubicle handling IFTA filings, before she runs her mouth spewing her ignorance about what it takes to make a business work.
Liz Warren
You mean, like, real work? Ewwww…
Most roads started as trade routes for merchants not for Aunt Sally to gallop 20 miles to see the nieces. I've studied one turnpike operation in Penna. and it was subscribed to by the local farmers and dairymen who wanted to get their goods into Phila. while they were still fresh. Yeah, Aunt Sally was welcome to use it too but it wasn't built for her convenience.
I believe American History demonstrates that most serious progress was made before the arrival of the income and use taxes.
What I consider progress, that is.
Warren is a joke. The fact that there is fawning over someone this far to the left shows how far gone the Democrats really are. As bad as the right is, at least they can occasionally perceive reality.
We don't have millions of poor living in absolute squalor because we are a wealthy, market-based society. Not because of government or government programs.
She is clearly a joke. And I don't think she is going to beat Scott Brown. Brown will be a strong candidate. I think even the Massholes are starting to understand that you don't want people like Warren anywhere near power.
I'm telling you, don't get your hopes up.
I don't know if she can win or not, but I do think it's going to be tough to run on the socialist ticket as Europe falls apart and we keep showing that we can't stop government spending.
Except that the socialists seem to be gaining ground in Europe. At least, this seems to be the case where they're currently in the opposiiton. The socialists just won a majority in Denmark, and Sarkozy and Merkel are in trouble in France and Germany respectively.
I think we're less insane than the Europeans. Just a little less, but I think it will be enough for this election. Too bad a truly small government majority is an improbability.
In other words, they vote like Americans. If stuff sucks, they vote for the other team. Nobody pays any attention to what either team says or does.
One thing that might help us is that the swing back and forth is happening much more quickly. Blaming the other party for its current rule when your rule wasn't that long ago doesn't work so well.
Which group of socialists took power in continental Europe in dire financial around…let's say the 1930s?
and that worked out so well
To be fair, it gave us the opportunity to bomb the fuck out of our economic competitors, thus ensuring our global dominance for 50 or 60 years.
Which group of socialists took power in continental Europe in dire financial straits around…let's say the 1930s?
ranting ranter
the key to the two-party system is getting voters to hate the other side more and blame them for every problem. For example all the problems in europe are a result the financial crisis caused by banksters.
…and deregulation/free markets.
Democrats? I am surprised that McCain is not out defending her already.
BurritoInMyTummy
Wait, we DON'T have millions of people living in squalor in this country? You'd better call the folks at the census and let them know, because according to their number for 2010, 46.2 million people live in poverty in the US.
So who is it that's out of touch with reality again??
NeonCat
Maybe the census is full of shit.
My parents only bought me a used corolla and an iPhone, a PS3 slim, a 42″ LCD, cable (with DVR, natch), and I'm saving up all my money for a new iPad.
Crippling poverty.
No, squalor.
Anyone who thinks 46.2 million people in the US live in squalor.
califronian
^ This + 46.2 million.
By the way the term is "poverty" not "squalor", for very important reasons. They are talking relative wealth, not actual squalor.
When the government talks about poverty in america they are talking about some of the wealthiest people to ever walk the earth.
"poverty" in the US means earning less than like 20k.
Meanwhile idiots argue China has zero poverty. The poverty level there? roughly one dollar a day as set by the world bank.
Spoonman.
Big difference between "poor" and "squalor".
Poverty is determined relative to the standard of living of the whole country. People in poverty are by definition people in the lowest X% of income. So two important things: unless we decide on a fixed definition of poverty, there will always be a certain percentage of people in poverty; and people living in "poverty" in the US are generally several levels above squalor and starvation. Most people living in poverty today probably have a higher absolute standard of living (if such a comparison can meaningfully be made) than your typical middle class person of 50 years ago.
There was some psychology study (I think linked here even) that showed a significant percentage of people would rather see everyone worse off as long as they were more equal, rather than everyone better off but some much better off than others.
In my opinion, all of these "relative" metrics come from socialist-minded people with this immature mindset. To hell with them and the stupidity they want to impose on society.
So the 14% of families classified as "food insecure" in the US just need to suck it because really, who needs a meal every single day? What a bunch of greedy, sniveling bastards.
Dig deeper. Read the definition of "food insecure" they use.
Hint: It doesn't mean hungry or going without food.
As a nice bit of personal research you should try to find out the number of cases per year of americans treated for malnutrition. go ahead.
Thanks for the little project! About 1% of children in the US suffer from chronic malnutrition–that's about 3/4 of a million children. Though they probably aren't "treated for malnutrition". I'm assuming that if they can't afford food, they can't afford medical treatment either.
Maybe their parents didn't know that "it's free! Swipe yo' EBT!"
E B T? Yeah, you know me!
Why are you such a disingenuous cunt?
You know you're wrong but you think stupid fucking snark like "So the 14% of families classified as "food insecure" in the US just need to suck it" goes over here, but take a note, we KNOW you're full of shit, we KNOW you don't really know what "food insecure" means, because if you did you'd realize how moronic your claims are, and we KNOW you don't really have any clue what the fuck you're running your discksucker about because, rather that directly address the effective and numerous rebuttals of your stupidity, you fire off another talking point.
Stop pretending you're smart enough to have this conversation.
Bahahaha! You're CHARMING!
"Food Insecure" = Missing the weekly McDonald's meal.
All depends what "is" is.
If you've got bling, an iPod, pot for the weekend, a full belly, and drinking money then you're not living in squalor. The poor in this country are living better than the middle class in most countries.
If you are going to live in poverty, this is the fucking country to do it in. As opposed to people in REAL poverty. You know like Cubans and Chinese and pretty much everyone that lived under the thumb of the USSR.
"The fact that there is fawning over someone this far to the left shows how far gone the Democrats really are."
Yup. As much as they bitch about a radical faction of Republicans (ie the Tea Party) coming to power and throwing a spanner in the gears of government, the Democrats have their own movement of uncompromising radicals. They just don't notice, because it's fucking all of them.
"There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own," she lectures. "Nobody. You built a factory out there? Good for you! But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that maurauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory . . . .Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea?God bless! Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along."
Never has a paragraph begged as strenuously for a thorough fisking!
Her basic fallacy is assuming that the factory owner doesn't pay any taxes.
He does, so he helped pay for all that stuff. As a factory owner, he generates a disproportionate amount of tax revenue for the state.
You built a factory out there? Good for you! But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads you helped pay for, along with the rest of us paid for. You hired workers you helped pay to educate, along with the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that you helped pay for, along with the rest of us paid for.
Sort of makes the whole rant pointless, doesn't it?
Post-Gibson Guitar, this one is dripping with creamy irony:
You didn't have to worry that maurauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory
sarcasmic
As a factory owner, he generates a disproportionate amount of tax revenue for the state.
Yes, but he gets rich in the process.
How can he get rich and also pay his fair share?
Obviously he's ripping everyone off if he's getting rich.
If he paid his fair share he wouldn't be rich.
Dick Fitzwell
It gets back to the old "the rich should pay more in taxes because they receive more of a benefit from a government that takes more of their money away from them" routine.
Don't the crony capitalists get a better deal from the country club Republicans and limousine liberal Democrats?
Was that supposed to be "or" between country club Republicans and limousine liberal Democrats?
Isaac Bartram
That is, if by "country club Republicans" you mean Rockerfeller republicans like Susan Collins.
Not to mention that the taxes on services "the rest of us paid for" actually comes from money that the factory owner paid to them. If the employees are more invested in fighting with the guy that cuts their paycheck rather than producing a good product, sooner or later they won't get paid (unless they work for Government Motors, of course).
So it seems if I only sell overseas and outsource all the labor as well I should pay less taxes according to her.
Got a newsletter?
"You didn't have to worry that non-government endorsed marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory" would be more accurate.
Neu Mejican
Nope. She doesn't say that. She says that he has no right to complain about the fact that he pays taxes. You could also infer that she thinks his tax burden is about right, but nothing in what she says indicates that the factory owner does not pay taxes (i.e., help pay for the roads, police, etc.)
She also acknowledges explicitly that the factory is a good thing and that the factory owner should be enriched by it.
ponchy
Actually, if you read her words and accept them at face value, she isn't saying what you claim. She doesn't acknowlege that the factory owner paid taxes. She very specifically states that all the things he enjoys are "paid for by the rest of us", the words "rest of" being used to specifically exclude the factory owner, in case you didn't notice. If those words aren't used to exclude the factory owner, what do they mean, anyway? Why are they there?
We can refuse to take her words at face value and reason in our own minds that, obviously, Warren must be aware that factory owners do pay taxes (even if she sort of doesn't believe/want-to-believe it on an emotional level). She just doesn't acknowlege it here. Why would she bother, after all? if she acknowleged how much tax is paid by the factory owner, her statement wouldn't be a furious, incendiary, blind rage rant, it would just be a somewhat reasonable and possibly even sensible statement of fact. People who vote for the likes of her prefer to think with their emotions, though, and wouldn't have any use for or interest in any of that. Better for Warren to phrase it as if the guy was getting away scott free, withouth paying any "hunk" to the next person who comes along. And that's exactly what she did.
Another thing she glosses over is that those things that are paid for by "the rest of us" benefit "the rest of us" as indivduals at least as much if not more than they benefit the factory owner. it's not like we're "paying" for this stuff just specifically to benefit the factory owner, we want it whether the factory exist or doesn't exist. And I put "paying" in quotes because personally I know I've never paid enough in state taxes to cover the cost of my public schooling, pell grants and state support of my state university degree. Some factory owner apparently paid for all that shit, not me.
ponchy,
the words "rest of" being used to specifically exclude the factory owner, in case you didn't notice. If those words aren't used to exclude the factory owner, what do they mean, anyway? Why are they there?
Respectfully, that is a strained reading of the passage. The meaning of "rest of us" is governed by the opening…
"There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own,"
This frames the discussion in terms of the people the hypothetical factory owner is hypothetically forgetting…i.e., the rest of us. It doesn't exclude him from the taxes, it excludes him from the group of people he is forgetting.
There is nothing strained about the reading of that paragraph unless you are trying to be pedantic. It most certainly does exclude him from the taxes, that's what she fucking straight out says.
You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that maurauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory
What she is saying in the opening is that the factory owner got rich off of "the rest of us". Not by forgetting us, but by not paying for the same things "the rest of us" paid for. To a certain degree that is true because if we didn't buy his product, he wouldn't make any money. But he sure as shit isn't forgetting that he needs customers.
This is like sophomore level reading comprehension.
This frames the discussion in terms of the people the hypothetical factory owner is hypothetically forgetting
No it's not–the plain meaning of her words indicate that she's blatantly arguing that everyone else paid for the things she says the factory owner is benefitting from.
As others have cited here, not only is that claim false from a monetary standpoint (since "the rich" pay most of the taxes), but if she's actually saying the things you claim she is, it means all that education of hers didn't improve her communication skills one bit.
or comprehension of capitalism…
She says that he has no right to complain about the fact that he pays taxes.
No, she doesn't say that at all.
Just to drive the point home:
"Nobody. You built a factory out there? Good for you! But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for.
Even if one takes the extremely tenuous argument that she's not saying the rich don't pay taxes, her overall assertion isn't even accurate–it's those selfish factory owners (i.e., "the rich" she and the rest of her menshevik fellow travelers so despise) that pay the majority of the taxes, not the people she's white-knighting.
It's always the manufacturers that catch hell. The people that actually make something.
I'd like to hear her say the same thing about lawyers.
You didn't have to worry that maurauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory.
So government is simply a protection racket? And Elizabeth Warren wants to be involved in a protection racket? What does that make Elizabeth Warren? A racketeer?
You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for.
Because a license plate for a semi truck costs exactly the same as for a passenger auto. Because there are no such things as overweight or oversize fees for semi trucks. Because there are no requirements that trucks purchase fuel in-state commensurate with in-state miles travelled. Because trucking companies eat those fees themselves rather than passing them on to shippers. Because every tax dollar collected from the trucking industry goes straight to a lock-box which is only used to pay for roads…
The transportation [trucking] industry paid $37.4 billion in federal and state highway-user taxes. Commercial trucks make up 12.5 percent of all registered vehicles, but paid 36.5 percent of total highway-user taxes in 2006.
Gilbert Martin
Warren is peddling nonsense with that rant about what "the rest of us paid for".
Particularly so, if she's trying to argue for increased FEDERAL INCOME TAXES on "the rich".
Police and firefighters are a state and local function – not a federal one. And the rich are already paying their share of the state and local taxes that finance those functions.
The roads are paid for by gas tax user fees and people who ship a lot of product in their business are already paying for that too.
Furthermore, if the mere existence of roads, police and firefighters caused people to get rich then everyone would be rich.
Warren isn't the least bit capable of proving that any of those basic government functions is the cause of the differential in outcomes between someone who became rich and someone who didn't.
That's like saying that Jimmy Johnson should have to pay higher race entrance fees at all the race tracks he runs at on the NASCAR circuit because it was the racetracks that somehow caused him to win multiple championships.
And that is absurd. Everybody in the race was running on the same track.
Cops, firefighters and public school teachers do not advance freedom or civilization; they inhibit it.
Enjoy Every Sandwich
And where did the "rest of us" get the money from? I'll freely admit that I got mine by trading my labor for money paid by those evul employers.
Something I never would have thought to be in question outside of a throw-away talking point. Yet here we are.
While I don't want socialism and a welfare state at all, I'd be far less distressed if the left were to have as a goal a strong, market-based economy from which they siphon off a small, non-economy-damaging portion of the wealth for their social programs. Unfortunately, the people spouting the open socialism and authoritarianism of the left right now don't seem to understand that you have to keep the parasite alive to suck its blood.
And by parasite you meant host right?
Restoras
Unfortunately, the people spouting the open socialism and authoritarianism of the left right now don't seem to understand that you have to keep the parasite host alive for the parasites to suck its blood.
Yes, yes, sorry. They're so many parasites around these days that it's difficult to remember what is what.
zombiez
keep alive?
Dagny T.
The left has really gone beyond any kind of sensible goals. It's more about perpetuating some kind of mid-century fantasy world of Evil Industrialists and Saintly Workers than it is about achieving reasonable (if such a thing exists… I'm meeting them more than half way here) social welfare programs. This parasite needs a narrative more than it needs a host.
Pro L, I agree. I would be OK with a compromise that permitted some social programs, in return for an end to all social engineering and regulations that do not prevent physical coercion or fraud.
Parasites are species subject to evolution — they've developed a sense of balance in how much they take from their host, typically. But it's also worth noting that parasites are external — xeno organisms.
The modern socialist movement is an internal threat — a part of the body society that stops contributing to the well-being of the society and just focuses on consuming nutrients resources and boosting its own numbers to protect itself from the society's defenses (which are already weaker against internal threats than external ones).
It manipulates the society into increasing the flow of resources to itself, allowing itself to grow even faster, and utilizes the society's systems to spread to other areas. Eventually, it starts to leave entire organs of society nonfunctional or wrecks the society's metabolism economy to the point that the society can no longer sustain itself as a coherent organized system, and it collapses, leaving its productive individual members to face deprivation or the predation of actual external threats.
So, social cancer, basically.
Or a virus.
Right. She personally wrote a fuckin check for some poor schmuck's education..
Leela: This toads the wet sprocket. What about out thousands of shares of stock?
Hermes: Worthless.
Bender: I'll kill you!
Hattie: I own one share of Planet kajiggers so I'm entitled to some answers. Question 1: Why does no one visit me in my home?
Farnsworth: 'Cause your apartment smells like Polygrip and cat pee.
(1) This is a pretty powerful takedown?of a position nobody holds. Or at least nobody outside an Ayn Rand novel. If Warren can find someone who thinks he does not live in community with other people, then she might have an argument. But don't sit on a hot stove waiting.
(4) Outside of a few anarchist collectives, there isn't a soul around who minds paying taxes for roads, cops, firemen, or schoolteachers. It's the jillion other things government does?from corporate welfare to the Iraq war?that people object to.
It would be easier for all of us if Objectivists and Anarchocapitalists weren't around to live up to the strawman fallacies.
It's always fun to be called a communist slave-driver for only wanting to cut the scope of government by 80%.
Eh. I think there are plenty of ways a rational person could disagree with the above. Did I ask to be a part of your "community" for example? And opposing public schools isn't exactly wild 'n crazy. I get not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, but those examples in particular struck me as striving a little too hard to come off as "moderate."
Did I ask to be a part of your "community" for example?
By not offing yourself moments after birth, you consented to the social contract.
Isn't that an Oliver Wendell Holmes quote?
Tony Krugman.
Tony Krugman would make a good handle.
Was he an understudy for the Odd Couple?
No…that was Jack Unger.
Killing yourself is theft. Without your labor you rob from the annual tax harvest and make everyone poorer.
roystgnr
And you didn't just consent to any written social contract, either, like that "Constitution" all the teabaggers keep whining about. You consented to the *unwritten* social contract, which says whatever Elizabeth Warren wants it to.
^^This is a very salient point^^
There are plenty of ways that rational people could learn to criticize Rand for her actual views rather than for their own sneering straw-man versions of them, too. But this is Reason Magazine. That won't happen here.
If you're an adult who isn't posting this from North Korea, then yes, you are making an ongoing conscious decision to live in the community that you do, based on your own cost-benefit analysis.
Barely Suppressed Rage
Note, though, that right after that in number (5), he adds:
Plenty of smart, well-meaning people also think even government's core functions could be delivered better and for less.
It would also be less frightening for some of us if those people living in an Ayn Rand novel weren't running for president.
Who needs strawmen when you have Michele Bachmann?
Uh, reality check, dude. Bachmann is a Christianist SoCon. Rand was hard core atheist.
True, but on economic issues Christianists and Objectivists agree surprisingly often.
Iconochasm
As someone not far off from Objectivism, no, not even close. Christianists, like most of the GOP, are like a cargo-cult. They mouth the words, but wouldn't know a free market if one was crammed down their throat, and annointed on their heads.
She is not even close to an randian. You have to be fucking retarded to confuse the two.
News flash: Supporting low taxes isn't even close to being a libertarian or randian. JFK fucking lowered taxes for christ's sake.
I'm no fan of Ayn Rand, but I'm not going to give her any blame whatsoever for that joke of a candidate that is Michelle Bachmann.
Note that this article was written for a more mainstream newspaper audience and reprinted here. Pandering to a more moderate sensibility should be expected.
Many of those who truly love peace prefer to live in a society where the use or threat of violence is minimized. Maybe that idea simply hasn't crossed Warren's mind.
It probably hasn't for she, Tony, MNG and the rest of the liberal ilk worship violence.
They lament that the rich don't pay their fair share. This is evidenced by the fact that they are rich. We'll know they paid their fair share when they're not rich anymore.
How do you get them to "pay"?
By threatening violence if they don't.
The core moral of liberalism is threatening violence in order to get their way.
For liberals violence is a moral virtue.
^becktard spewing rusharrhea^
What do those words mean? Can anyone translate?
He means "derp"
Double Asshole to English
Here's the translation:
"I'm too stupid to type real words"
I'll field this one.
Those are the gurglings you hear when Double Anus (or sockpuppet surrogates) snakes the feeding tube from his rectum into his gullet and tries to talk while eating.
libertarian Viking
I believe he called him a retard that listens to Glenn Beck (becktard), who is 'spewing' thoughts similar to that of Rush Limbaugh 'rusharrhea'. At least that's my guess.
The really pathetic part is that he probably thought, and still thinks, that he delivered a "zinger".
To liberals, anything not liberal = right-wing diarrhea.
i can haz ur money lolz
He means that sarcasmic is a retarded follower of Glen Beck who is repeating Rush Limbaugh's talking points as though he was vomiting forth verbal diarrhea. Note that I'm just translating his statement, not endorsing it.
FWIW, we should probably specify "progressives" instead of liberals. Mitchell's two-axis political spectrum based on arche and kratos is a pretty compelling alternative to the Nolan chart IMO, as any chart that places progressives, communitarians, and neocons on the same pro-violence side of an axis must be.
typology of trolling
John|9.27.11 @ 1:05PM|#
The "running joke will be funny eventually" troll: repeats a variation of the same line over and over and over again in the mistaken belief it is witty.
Um I'm pretty sure John is not a troll.
i wuz born wen my momz spewed o2arrhea in her pants
so basically, the article confirms the obvious – Elizabeth Warren is a Dem. By the way, does her rant mean that we all own a part of Harvard and should have ready access to its resources?
Everything is everybody's. Theft is no longer a legal concept. Take whatever you need.
See also: Kinde Durkee.
Yes. See, it's not corruption or theft when politicians take money. It's just their social right. We actually all have that right. The natural right to take stuff.
Property is theft.
By declaring something to be yours you're depriving others the opportunity to use it.
And they wanna use it.
They wanna.
And you said no.
But they wanna.
WANNA!
WAAAAA-NAAAAAA!
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
That is the goal.
We all share.
We're in it together after all.
Everyone contributes so no one goes without.
From each according to ability, to each according to need.
It takes some pillage.
You have to have a village, in order to have some pillage. A village that the rest of us paid for.
scariest words ever.
Depends.
If you're a worthless turd who would otherwise depend on charity, since you either choose not to contribute to society or are unable to, then those words are beauty.
If you're someone who resents those who contribute to society and want to take their profits away as punishment, then this gives you the moral high ground.
Theft and violence are virtues.
Productivity and persuasion are faults.
The thing is that even the worthless turds who may think this is a good idea are worse off under that system. Much worse off actually.
To me "from each according to his ability" means that when the Hope hits fruition and progressive utopia comes, all those liberal arts educated 30 year old hipsters are going to be surprised to have their acoustic guitars and art making supplies taken away from them, and they'll be set up at gunpoint on stationary fixies where they'll pedal and pedal, saving the planet by generating 100% renewable electricity all day every day for the rest of their lives, until finally they're old and crippled enough to switch over to receiving according to their need. So yes, worthless turds should be very afraid of that statement as far as I can think.
Great way to make everyone incompetent and needy.
Try it the other way for succinct hard-core libertarianism: "From each according to his need, to each according to his ability."
That doesn't make any fucking sense.
October.4.2011 at 11:31 pm
You have to work till you meet your needs. You get paid according to your ability. Makes sense to me.
"However, in the end, what is really needed is a fundamental rethinking of the notion that the state, rather than private markets, must monopolize the provision of justice and security. This is the fatal conceit."
Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr., September 27, 2011.
From each according to ability, to each according to need inability.
Harvard is different. They are a non profit. They mean well. For that reason it is perfectly okay for them to hoard 28 billion dollars and not pay a dime of taxes on it.
Old Mexican
"There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own," she lectures.
That is true. They became rich no thanks to the government. Let's be fair about it.
"Nobody. You built a factory out there? Good for you! But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for.
Which is kind of silly to argue, as there are no other roads out there. It's like saying to Jaycee Dugard "yes, you have children, but if it wasn't for the fact that I abducted and raped you, you would still be childless!"
"You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate."
"And since those lives belong to us, the government, you have to pay!"
I did not know the government leased people to industry. What a way to find out!
And those workers are in no way responsible for their own education or success. Nope, they were educated by the government. If not for the government lifting them up, they would be living in caves I guess.
Warren really did let the mask slip didn't she? God what an awful woman.
So people should get a free ride on our roads and our schools because there exists the theoretical possibility that they could have had private roads and education and exactly the same success?
"If asking a billionaire to pay the same tax rate as a Jew"
sorta like the Mouth of Sauron, only prettier…
I may become Jewish AND get a job as a janitor.
Don't be silly. It's obvious that Warren was trying to make the case for offering tax breaks to employers who hire people that were homeschooled or privately educated.
You know who Elizabeth Warren is? Mother Gothel. And those of us in the productive class are Rapunzel. And my pop culture references are totally lame compared to everyone else's. But at any rate, I'm pretty sure if we stick to the plot, we end up killing the parasites by deliberately Roarking our capital so they can't feed off it.
Oh, spoilers. My bad, yo.
"They became rich no thanks to the government."
Since some people get rich off the government, all people who are rich got that way from the government.
That is some solid logical thinking there.
Computer, Cell Phone Industry
Yeah, no thanks to government.
Yup, never would have had either of those without government. Who would want those without government telling us to buy 'em?
Re: BakedPenguin,
That was the point 😉
Got me, OM. I was thinking of UNISYS, ARPANET, and the military com systems, and I could see a real troll attributing all that stuff only to the benevolence of government.
If we were still operating primarily as a free market economy, with minimal government interference, would we have lots more technology or lots less?
Less without question. The market does not direct resources to basic research like the government does. The market is short-sighted by nature.
By your logic, I am responsible for the iPod.
Would the ipod be possible without the invention of the computer?
Would anything be possible without the invention of fire?
Let's see. Powered flight: Discovered by individuals. Electricity: Discovered by individuals. Antibiotics: Discovered by individuals. Automobile: Invented by individuals. Assembly line: Invented by individuals. I could go on, but you're a fucking idiot who ignores any and all evidence and repeats the Team Blue talking point du jour.
the intercontinental railroad?
Yeah, but:
The Wright brothers went to government schools.
Thomas Edison ate bratwurst provided by rail, which was built by government.
Government made the invention of all antibiotics possible; without it, we'd all be dead now.
The Dureya brothers (note: they predate Henry Ford, of which more anon) and Packard (which started building autmobiles in 1899) couldn't have built cars without government, even though paved ROADS came decades later.
Corollary to above: The first Benz was patented in 1886, and without *German* government… well, we'd be walking or riding horses, unless PETA made it illegal.
The progenitor of the modern assembly line was conceived by noted anti-Jew Henry Ford, but he couldn't have possibly made it happen if government hadn't provided the means of distributing the pickled eggs he shoved up his ass every morning.
I actually find this viral a useful metric in deciding which people to defriend on Facebook.
I want to be your friend! oh pretty please!!!
Montani Semper Liberi
If you live in the state of New Jersey, can you get Warren to give you pro bono legal advice? After all, she got her degree from Rutgers-Newark, which is a public school. Everyone in New Jersey paid a little for her to become the successful lawyer and law professor she is today. Somehow I'm guessing she believes that things are different in her case.
Taxes and public service are for the little people. Important people like her have important things to do and can't be bothered with such things.
Since they paid for her legal education, she should have to serve out a period of indentured servitude to the people of New Jersey, right?
Yes, she can start by picking up the dog shit in my yard.
Reminds me of the Chris Rock joke. A hooker tells him "I'll do anything for $300!" "You'll do anything for $300? Bitch, paint my house!"
"This is a pretty powerful takedown?of a position nobody holds. Or at least nobody outside an Ayn Rand novel. If Warren can find someone who thinks he does not live in community with other people, then she might have an argument."
I don't think anyone living in an Ayn Rand novel believes that either. What she apparently assumes is that the only important way someone contributes to their community is through taxes. Providing goods and services is not enough, creating employment opportunities is not enough. As well as the ridiculous implication that someone who created a factory has not been paying taxes along with everybody else.
That about sums it up. The only good anyone creates or does is pay taxes. All those neat gadgets and services corporations give us are not a good. They are just a means to support the government which is the real good.
Good can only come through force.
Cooperation never produced anything of value.
Only violence.
The statist mindset in a nutshell.
Ha! Someone please raise your hand if you like paying taxes. I sure don't. If government made paying taxes voluntary, then there would be no revenue for teachers, police, fire, or roads. The fact it, everybody minds paying taxes. Just ask yourself this, do you pay taxes because you really are impressed with the quality of roads and public servants? Or, do you pay taxes because it is somehow incomprehensible for the private sector to figure out how to build roads, fight fires, provide security, or educate?
Or are you like me, and do you pay taxes because you are afraid that if you don't, you will go to jail? The fact is, people largely pay taxes out of fear, because it certainly isn't because the government is doing a bang-up job with our money. Call me crazy, but I most definitely mind being threatened with imprisonment if I don't pay for crummy state services.
No way your a Kennedy with that belief system.
Does this industrialist NOT pay taxes on every good sold, all income, every raw material purchased, on the labor to create his factory, etc? Does (s)he not pay for use of the roads by gasoline taxes and vehicle registration? Does (s)he not pay to educate future workers by paying property taxes, etc? Does (s)he not have to pay taxes on capital gains unless they reinvest in the 1031 exchange market- which helps the economy by allowing better cashflow to small businesses, etc?
I guess what I'm driving at is- even without having to pay higher income tax rates, isn't this person already paying for all this stuff during the course of doing business?
Yes, but the person is also getting rich.
How can they both pay their fair share and get rich at the same time?
Obviously if they're rich then they're not paying their fair share.
When they're not rich anymore, and all their employees are on the dole, and their factory is closed, then they will have paid their fair share.
profit…how does it work?
35N4P2BYY
I am suprised that we have not seen an appearance of one of our trolls, this article, I would think, is ready made for their class warfare narrative.
OO is around. But no one can ever understand what he writes. Tony must be out doing a long trick today.
Kinky Kelly the Donkey
Yeah, Tony sucks a mean cock, let me tell you.
Maybe the cock wouldn't be so mean if Tony would use a little less teeth.
I think you are misremembering "Clerks II".
If the leftists really think Warren's blather is some sort of slam dunk retort agasint the class warfare charge on Obama's soak the "rich" schemes, that is quite telling regarding the vacuousness of their own minds.
If they really think that something that is so easily shot down by just about anybody who spends more than 2 seconds thinking about it passes for wisdomo, they are far gone between the ears.
I'm actually stunned by the fact that even some people are impressed by her statements. I'm also stunned by the fact that I'm stunned.
But this is how they think Pro. They sit around and talk to each other. They have no idea how to make or defend an honest argument. They just make sweeping statements that reflect what "right thinking people believe". If you have been around or tried to talk to many liberals, you would not be surprised they are impressed by Warren. Her rant is about as good as they can do. They really don't know any better.
Hate Potion Number Nine
"They just sit around and talk to each other…"
I'd like you to meet Mr. Kettle. I think you'll like each other.
Jesus H. Christ...
I linked to the article on TPM and it was amazing to read the comments from her admirers.
One guy (I assume it was a guy) had the nerve to disagree with Lizzy and he was filleted.
Lizzy Warden
took an axe and gave the evul corporations a 50% tax
when she saw what she had done, she tacked on 20% just for fun.
Mr. Hinkle fails to mention in point #3 that the richest fifth of Americans pay 64 percent of taxes, but they earn 90 percent of the income. Why do you think he purposely left that out? Do you think he is too dumb to know that statistic? Is he trying to inform you or manipulate you. The rich thank you for your support. Yes, you are secretly a genius. And you are doing a great job of keeping it a secret!! Keep watching Faux News, peasants.
Vote: Troll or no?
I like the class warfare strawman with the "90% of all income" statistic, but the "Faux News" is unlike Tony.
A Tony comment without the word "policy" likely isn't Tony.
I think it is real. He is usually better than saying Faux News. But he is not above doing it at all.
Could be Tony – he blatantly lies and makes shit up like the "90% of income" bullshit.
oncogenesis
His website link is an improvement.
Not having a railroad spike in ones' forehead is an "improvement", which means Tony's inclusion of a website is marginally better than that.
Not sure, but the top quintile in 2009 paid 67.2 in Fed taxes but earned 53.4% of income, not 90%.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org…..bution.cfm
So I call Bullshit either way.
The Class Envy can have a strong influence on the weak-minded.
"Mr. Hinkle fails to mention in point #3 that the richest fifth of Americans pay 64 percent of taxes, but they earn 90 percent of the income. Why do you think he purposely left that out?"
Probably because no one's income is a "service" provided to them by the federal government and it is therefore irrelevant.
Re: Stoopid in Amerika,
Mr. Hinkle fails to mention in point #3 that the richest fifth of Americans pay 64 percent of taxes, but they earn 90 percent of the income.
Which is meaningless. It's not like they sit on their money like Scrooge McDuck, you imbecile.
He made it up, anyway. The top 10% pay about 70% of the taxes and have about 40% of the wealth.
and the bottom 5% pay 3% of the taxes and have 70% of the babies and create 90% of the refuse in landfills…
"Why do you think he purposely left that out?"
Because it is not true.
The wealthiest Americans do have the highest percentages of income, but they pay a higher percentage of the taxes.
https://reason.com/archives/201…..s-and-redi
Au H20
Actually, it's more like 18.8 percent, up from 7 percent in the 70s.
He failed to mention it because it's not true. The top 50% of the people earn about 87% of the income but pay 97% of the federal income tax.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/n……html#Data
The top 25% earn 67% of the income but pay 86% of the federal income taxes.
"But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along."
Elizabeth Warren lets loose the basic premise whence she builds her whole pillaging philosophy: That entrepreneurs and corporations take from society, hence they must pay some back to society.
Obviously, the entrepreneurs and corporations do not "take" anything, they instead produce and exchange. The thief believes everybody else is a thief, hence her thinking.
She's also a sack of shit. That counts as well.
Some people do not understand the concept of wealth.
They see a "poor" person and ignore their Gore-Tex jacket, leather shoes, headphones connected to an MP3 player, cell phone in the pocket, microwave and air conditioner at home, and only see someone with a low income.
The fact that this "poor" person is wealthy compared to most of the world, and in possession of technology that wasn't even dreamed of a couple generations ago is irrelevant.
All they see is money.
Money money money.
One person as a little and the other has a lot.
Virtue is measured in the amount of violence one is willing to threaten and commit in order to "fix" this income disparity.
Re: sarcasmic,
All they [leftist boobs] see is money.
You're right. They [leftist boobs] do not understand that money is a claim on future goods that comes from previously-produced goods. A person has to produce something first before he can receive his claim on future goods.
The stoopid assholes like Tony et al, do not see or don't want to see that the money obtained by investors (hedgefund managers or whatever) serves to produce more goods and services from where they can have a claim – i.e. obtain a profit. That means, they produced new goods and services through investing capital (liquid or goods) so other people could produce.
It is this capital that allows people to be more productivein their toil. Nobody makes a fucking shirt from scratch, or a fucking car with their bare hands; they use capital and capital goods to achieve these productive results. That capital comes from savings and investors who are willing to take risks innnew endeavors.
So, Tony et al: FUCK YOU!!!!!!
You're thinking.
They [leftist boobs] don't think. They emote.
They see a rich person and they feel envy and resentment. They see a poor person and it boils into a violent rage.
How can this person justify all that wealth when by giving up just a little they could bring this poor person out of poverty?
It's not fair!
It's just not fair!
I guess Mama never told you that life isn't fair.
Except life is expected to be fair with regard to your taxes and your property rights.
except Gub'mint is expected to be consistent and adhere to the constitution.
They see a "poor" person and ignore their Gore-Tex jacket, leather shoes, headphones connected to an MP3 player, cell phone in the pocket, microwave, EBT card, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, deeply discounted utility payments, free jobs training, state provided childcare and air conditioner at home, and only see someone with a low income.
Yes, a comment from a "secret" genius. A woman who has worked hard all her life, raised a family, educated herself, and worked to pass that knowledge on to others, and has never said a hateful thing about anyone is described as a "sack of shit". That pretty well sums up this site doesn't it?
Saying that no one in the country ever got rich without owing everything they own to the government is pretty damned hateful. More importantly, it is silly and stupid. Warren deserves what she gets and should not be taken seriously by anyone.
That's not what she said, is it?
Re-read it. That is EXACTLY what she said.
She said people owe everything they own to the government?
Yes, she did.
Trouble with gray areas, sport?
How come she "educated herself", yet the evil factory owner "hired workers the rest of us paid to educate"?
I smell a double standard.
Good catch.
She l'arned all that stuff by the light of candles she crafted from wax from her own personal beehives, reading books she wrote herself on paper she processed from trees she cut down from an axe she forged on a homemade anvil she made from iron she dug out of the ground with a shovel she made out of a stick and half of a skull she took from a deer she killed with a bow and arrow she crafted by hand using a stone knife she hand-chipped with rocks she dug up by hand as a child.
I heartily invite Media Matters to cut'n'paste the hateful anti-Elizabeth Warren diatribe I posted above just now.
Yes, a comment from a "secret" genius. A woman who has worked hard all her life, raised a family, educated herself, and worked to pass that knowledge on to others, and has never said a hateful thing about anyone is described as a "sack of shit".
But that's only because she is one, sockpuppet. DESPITE the fact that it was her that worked; DESPITE the fact that her efforts were hers, nevertheless she says that OTHER PEOPLE'S EFFORTS are nothing without the government. Can she be more insulting and hypocritical than that?
Chatroom Crank
What work has Warren ever done? She has spent her life living off other people. If tax money dries up, she starves.
A woman who has worked hard all her life using roads and police and firefighters the rest of us paid for, raised a family educated in schools the rest of us paid for, educated herself at a university the rest of us paid for,
Goose, meet gander. Gander, goose.
Sweet! A hunting thread! Now where did I leave that shotgun?
A lot of that sounded pretty accusatory, hateful, and vaguely threatening to me.
She is a hateful, manipulative, and hilariously self-centered old crone. Fuck her. She's Rand minus the mitigating circumstance of being mostly right about those she hates.
Mario Diana
"Or at least nobody outside an Ayn Rand novel."
Mr. Hinkle, if this is your impression of Ayn Rand's writings, then I'm afraid I've spent more time googling you to see if you were a man or woman, so I would know how to address you, than you've spent reading her. Why criticize Ms. Warren — or anyone, for that matter — for creating a straw man when it's obvious you yourself enjoy the fun to be had with one? Shame on you.
Yes. Taking a potshot at Rand over that bit is silly. The community of Galt's Gulch lived firmly by the standard that if you do not contribute to the community you don't get to live in the community. Rand just had a different conception of "contribution" than does Warren, and apparently, Hinkle.
Hinkle's a fucking hack.
In case anyone hasn't seen this before, Megan McCardle took apart Warren before she even got involved with Obama when Megan reviewed Warren's big "medical debt driving bankrupcty" hypothesis and found it to be seriously flawed.
http://www.theatlantic.com/bus…..lar/60211/
McCardle also took apart the idiocy behind Warren's book -"The Two Income Trap" by highlighting that her arithmetic and use of statistics was at best flawed, at worst knowingly manipulating flawed math to make a point.
Good catch. I remember reading those when they came out. McCardle can be annoying. But she is very smart and unlike Warren actually has some knowledge of math and statistics.
Basically everything Warren has ever written has been either half truths or downright disingenuous.
Which probably means she'll win in a landslide in Brown's district. Even as a born and raised Masshole I still can't get over the fact that Barney hasn't been held accountable for his part in destroying the economy through FM&FM; and the housing market bubble. He still keeps winning thanks to the Union goons in New Bedford and Taunton.
Thank god I left that craphole.
Which probably means she'll win in a landslide in Brown's district.
Weak minded liberals whose emotions are easily manipulated can be easily led by half truths and downright disingenuous lies.
Maybe Megan McCardle didn't understand what she was reading. She found not one inaccuracy in these studies. Mostly she didn't like the point that Ms. Warren was making. I see that passes for "fact" on this site. Sad.
She found not one inaccuracy in these studies.
So I see you didn't read the link, especially this part-
This paper was deeply, deeply flawed, and all in ways that suggested–as this discussion does–that rising medical bills were causing an increase in bankruptcies. I'll try to hit the highlights:
But don't bother responding, if this indeed is the real Tony. I'm not interested in debating with someone who can't argue in good faith.
Again, I see that Ms. McCardle did not understand the study. Rather than saying she doesn't understand, she calls the study flawed. That is not a fact, that is her unqualified opinion. Don't you understand the difference?
Coming from you, this is hilarious.
Lord Humungus
keep reaching for the stars!
It's not Tony. He never "tarts up" the e-mail address.
This from the guy who just makes up lies as he goes along:
Tony|9.27.11 @ 1:33PM|#
Notice you did not supply any statistic to back up your statement. The point was to get some of these people to do real research for a change. Why didn't you?
Here you go, you dishonest shit:
OhbamaLies
The lawn mowing analogy is more like we agree that you'll pay me $30 to mow your lawn but then only pay $20 because I did such a good job. Certainly I couldn't have done so well without the roads and schools.
No, you pay $30, but then the mower pays $4.50 in taxes to pay for all the benefits provided to him/her by the people of the United States (national security, roads, schools, police, fire, EMS, etc.)
Talk about being disingenuous and arguing in bad faith.
The people are not the government, and even if they were with roughly 50% paying no federal income taxes it's a joke to say those listed things are provided by them.
Yep. This is definitely the "real" Tony.
Completely dishonest and full of shit.
Who is the government then? An occupying force? What is wrong with you that you don't understand that the government is the people of the United States?
Go suck a dick. I'm don't debate liars.
You don't debate, period. You're too lazy to do the research. You just want to spout your "genius" statements. No diploma, right?
Where's your citation for your made up 'statistics' asshole?
Uh, it's made up, remember? The point is to get you to do the research to find the real number. You still have not done that. Get to work!! Learn the difference between fact and opinion. Then you can call someone a liar without sounding like a 4 year old.
The point is to get you to do the research to find the real number.
That's why I make up shit with no substantiation, because the burden of proof is never on me a bloo bloo bloo.
Try following the links that you were provided, moron. They lead to actual facts that disprove your idiotic statements. Try to learn the difference between your ass and a hole in your head.
The point is that you are a deliberate liar.
You don't debate, period. You're too lazy to do the research.
This from the same guy who said, "I don't want to do the math, I'm too lazy."
He says I don't debate and then proceeds with some personal attacks that don't qualify as "debate".
What a joke.
What is wrong with you that you don't understand that the government is the people of the United States?
What is wrong with you that you don't understand that voting does not make you part of government?
If the mobsters to whom you pay protection money gave you a list of guidos and allowed you to vote for their leader, would that make you a made man?
If voters don't control government who does?
Thanks for not opening with your usual "go suck a dick". You're doing better already. Keep it up.
but voters don't have direct power over the various departments – EPA for example. They can create regulations that aren't even voted on. Tell me again about the power of the voters.
The guido the voters were privileged enough to choose from a list.
Thanks for not opening with your usual "go suck a dick".
That's usually my closer when I'm sick of your dishonest bullshit.
Politicians are government, and politicians are marginally human.
I'm being *extremely* kind here.
Nahh! The spoofs are getting better and better. This one needs to work on incorporating a more condescending tone in his posts. He's got the lying part down solid though.
No, you pay $30, but then the mower pays $4.50 in taxes
Actually, the employer is the source of the $4.50 in taxes, too, since he's, you know, the source of the money in the first place.
Really, when you count the taxes that employees supposedly pay (which is really just a fraction of the money received from employers), employers are an even greater source of tax revenue than they're given credit for.
If you're trying to say it's not really the employee's money, then I guess the source of the employer's money is the customers of his business. And that would ultimately be the people of the United States (assuming we're not talking multi-national). What's the point of talking about where the money comes from?
What's the point of talking about where the money comes from?
Are you saying that Warren wasn't arguing that everyone else but the factory owner paid for those services?
Everyone else AND the factory owner. See, all of us, together, according to one's ability. Ms. Warren never implied the owner did not pay. Just that he/she should pay their share. Which they currently do not as Mr. Buffett explained.
Ms. Warren never implied the owner did not pay.
Um, yeah, that's exactly what she said:
You do know the difference between "we" and "the rest of us," yes?
Just that he/she should pay their share. Which they currently do not as Mr. Buffett explained.
Sure they are–they're paying most of the taxes.
Hey fuckstick. I make a living in my house writing music that I sell and by singing songs for people in my own house, which I own outright. I am not using roads to do this, am a self-taught musician, pay water/sewer, income taxes sales taxes and property taxes. I don't owe society shit.
You're the worst enemy of liberals, Gimlet. You're not paying Your Fair Share.
I'm afraid I've got to disagree with you there.
The taxes that employers pay for their employees, like the matching payroll taxes, are really just part of the employee's total compensation. Same with the employer's share of insurance.
All of that money is part of the expense of having an employee. Whether the employer gave it all to the employee or divvied it up amongst the employee, tax man and insurance company doesn't really matter.
The employer is still the source of the tax revenue in this case–it's really not that much of a difference which side of the ledger it comes from, because the money is coming from the employers coffers, whether it's withdrawn via income taxes or payroll taxes.
Actually, if he's in the bottom quintile he's paying less than $1.20 in taxes, almost all of which is FICA, which according to you liberals pays for that generous Social Security retirement that he's going to get. He's not paying for any of "the benefits provided to him/her by the people of the United States (national security, roads, schools, police, fire, EMS, etc.)" out of that.
To be paying $4.50 in taxes he needs to be in the middle quintile to which I say "That's one well-off lawnmowing son of a bitch."
Aren't you going to get a "generous Social Security retirement"? Why do you seem to think you earned yours, but he is being "given" his?
Why do you seem to think you earned yours, but he is being "given" his?
Why do you put words in other people's mouths, and say they said things they didn't?
Didn't say he said it. I said he "seems to think…" Notice he didn't deny it?
So if I accuse you of spreading AIDS and you don't deny it (within 30 minutes on an internet message board), that means you actually did it?
I hear Tony fucks sheep.
tick-tock, tick-tock, tick-tock, tick-tock…
Didn't Reason get sued by some pussy who got his feelings hurt? Tony might get riled up and do the same!
Tony, that is beside the point. The discussion was about a hypothetical tax payer mowing lawns, not me. Not everybody wants to be the center of attention like you.
The point is that the employee in the example is not even paying enough in taxes to pay for his retirement, let alone all those other things you paid for.
People in higher tax brackets pay not only for the government services they consume but all the stuff the mower of lawns is now consuming.
Neither what I pay in taxes nor whether I will get SS is relevant to this discussion. But good try at diverting attention to the real issue.
W.W.T.
It's really shocking how nuts the left has gotten. Look at some of these comments on the huffington post.
"couple of days with no answer, so I'll post again:
To all the right-wing ers trying to preemptive ly trash Elizabeth Warren:
The "Buffett Rule," holds that no millionaire should pay a lower effective tax rate than a typical middle class family.
If you think millionaires SHOULD pay a lower effective tax rate than middle class families, kindly tell us WHY you think so."
"The next Senator from Massachusetts is starting to look very presidential!"
"Republicans derive great pleasure from belittling the accomplish ments of the nation they claim to support.
They oppose federal funding of R&D—whic h gave us, among other things, the internet.
They oppose helping the poor by claiming that the poor are just lazy and shiftless- –when they know that is not true.
They no longer believe in upgrading and repairing our national infrastruc ture, which is necessary for the US to remain competitiv e economically.
They deride those who give their careers to public service, claiming that they mooch from taxpayers- —when in fact, those public servants make our nation function pretty well.
They are abusive to educators and the idea of public education- —one of the greatest achievemen ts of this country— an achievemen t that made us the economic envy of the world, because we had well-educa ted and well-train ed citizens.
They insist that American government know-how and ingenuity cannot any longer create the great public works projects that gave us Hoover Dam, our national parks, and our now-crumbling Interstate system.
They do not believe in investing in America's future—w hich they see as bleak, arid, and miserable.
They work actively for the failure of their president- –even though that means working for the failure of the nation.
In short, Republican s cannot deal successful ly with a woman like Warren, who knows how we got where we are, and how to get where we need to be.
That frightens Republican s—becaus e Warren represents everything they hate, and she can talk to people in their own everyday language, and explain things to them in a way that makes sense."
It's true that the government created the Internet. But it wallowed in obscurity for two decades. It was the private sector, specifically the porn industry, that transformed it into what it is today.
That is one of my favorite pieces of leftist stupidity. The same people who have made it well neigh impossible to build anything this country thanks to NIMBY zoning laws and environmental laws, say that without a hint of irony. And they are not being facetious. That is what is so scary. They really are that fucking stupid and that unaware. It is just terrifying when you think about it.
Good luck trying to get a dam built. If you manage to succeed don't bother trying to drive to see it in one of those cars you despise.
The Hoover dam was also built by six corporations. The government hired them, true, but it was done by gov. funding, not government labor.
I always enjoy this little nugget. Public servant is not supposed to be a career path fuck-head.
Robert Rizzo
Worked out pretty well for me…
Another "genius" comment!! See the difference between politicians and career federal government employees? No? Really? Now, who is the "fuck head"?
I like how the so-called Buffet-Rule never ever leads a leftist to conclude we should lower taxes on the middle class. Always that we should raise taxes on the millionaire.
That's because middle-class is the stepping stone to being an evil rich person making a penny over the magic $200K entry-level price for being a member of the "winners of lifes' lottery".
Mensheviks hate the kulaks even more than the aristocracy.
Cliff Clavin
It's a little-known fact, my friend Red…
Mr. Hinkle fails to mention in point #3 that the richest fifth of Americans pay 64 percent of taxes, but they earn 90 percent of the income
Where does that 90% number come from. based on the smell, I suspect you just pulled it out of your ass.
The Congressional Budget Office won't support it.
In 2007, the highest quintile earned 55.9 percent of pretax income and paid 68.9 percent of federal taxes.
Now think about the level of "disposable" income in the groups. Yep, that's where it starts to get tricky and everybody is going to have a different opinion on that. But at least you're thinking and sharing statistics which is unusual for this site.
Actually, Tony, you're the one I see making the most unsupported assertions here.
What Tony says is true. I have NEVER seen the Reason staff or any of the H&R commentariat use statistics.
Not EVAR
Apostate Jew
Isaac,
Which only proves that the tax system is progressive but not even close to 90 percent top bracket progressive (because that top quintile, individually, has so much income). You could just as easily say, "The 80 percent of taxpayers who collectively earn only 44.1 percent of pre-tax income pay 31.1 percent of federal taxes."
The way Hinkle put it is at best suggestive and at worst dishonest. He made it seem like the 40 percent are really getting over. They ain't cause they've got bupkas for income.
Barton,
You can do better.
I don't concede the roads, teachers, firefighters and police. I'm not an anarchist for opposing our money being spent on them; I'm opposing theft.
Here "money spent on roads" means 9 guys stand around while 1 digs a hole. Then they fill it in. then they dig it again. Then they fill it in. All day, every day, for months at a time.
Here "money spent on firefighters and policemen" means 6 figure pensions and free healthcare for life, for more years than they put in-and not a mere 100k 6 figure, but 300, 400k. Same for the school superintendents. Schoolteachers are making 6 figures as well for 9 months of work when their health insurance is factored in.
No, I'm tired of being told how saintly those professions are. They aren't saints. They're bleeding us dry. But they sure wrap themselves in the flag and in some nostalgia when it suits them.
So let's get this straight. A guy who runs into burning buildings to save your life is a parasite on society, but a guy who makes millions or billions doing jack shit but making financial bets is a hard working productive member of society?
The richest in American don't DO anything. They just make money. We must be careful not to equate wealth with virtue, as Adam Smith warned. That would be bad enough, but calling teachers and firefighters leeches because they don't make poverty wages? Do you listen to yourself?
The richest in American don't DO anything. They just make money
If that is not Tony, it might has well be. Ladies and gentleman, you American liberal douchebag. Yes, they really are this stupid.
Between you, sarcasmic, and old mexican, there might be a single thought on this entire thread. But it's mostly just name calling. Didn't you appoint yourself blog police the other day?
Tony, you really don't think the rich do anything? They just make money by magic I guess. That is self evidently stupid. It is so stupid it is unworthy of anything but scorn.
I'm saying I don't give a shit if they do things or not, I don't think tax policy should be based on someone's moral judgment of people.
What do the Waltons (some of the richest Americans) do exactly, other than be the recipients of particular genes?
"I don't think tax policy should be based on someone's moral judgment of people"
Like, for instance, how much over $199,999.99 a single person makes per 12-month period?
"I don't think tax policy should be based on someone's moral judgment of people."
Yet you go agreeing with those who say that the income group paying the most in taxes as a total and a percentage of income are not paying some nebulous idea of a "fair share". That is a moral judgement of people.
Samuel Robson "Rob" Walton (born October 28, 1944)[5][1][2] is the eldest son of Helen Walton and Sam Walton, founder of Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer. He is currently (as of 2011) chairman of the worldwide company. According to Forbes, his net worth was $21 billion as of 9 March 2011.[1]
Walton attended The College of Wooster and graduated from the University of Arkansas in 1966 with a bachelor of science degree in business administration. He received a juris doctor degree in 1969 from the Columbia University School of Law in New York City. Walton is also a trustee at The College of Wooster.[3]
After graduation Walton became a member of the law firm which represented Wal-Mart; Conner and Winters in Tulsa, Oklahoma.[3] In 1978 he left Tulsa to join Wal-Mart as a senior vice president[3] and in 1982 appointed him vice chairman.[6]
He was named chairman of the board of directors of Wal-Mart on April 7, 1992, two days after his father's death, and still maintains that title.
John T. Walton – He dropped out of college in 1968 to enlist in the U.S. Army (after the Vietnamese Tet Offensive).
During the Vietnam war Walton served in the Green Berets as part of the Studies and Observations Group. He was involved in combat in the A Shau Valley and in Laos, where he was the medic and second-in-command of a unit named "Strike Team Louisiana".[2] Walton later received a Silver Star for bravery in combat.
[edit] Later life
After returning from Vietnam Walton learned to fly and went to work as a pilot for Wal-Mart. He later left the company to fly crop-dusters over cotton fields in several southern states and co-founded Satloc, an aerial application company that pioneered the use of GPS technology in agricultural crop-dusting. Walton then moved to San Diego where he founded Corsair Marine,[3] a company that built trimaran sailboats. He also lived in Durango, Colorado and was an enthusiastic skier, mountain biker, hiker, motorcycle rider, sky diver and scuba diver.
In 1998, as part of the Philanthropy Roundtable, Walton and friend Ted Forstmann established the Children's Scholarship Fund to provide tuition assistance for low-income families to send their children to private schools.
Christy Walton – Facesofphilanthropy.com references Cond? Nast Portfolio magazine as ranking her the highest female philanthropist, according to the amount she gives as a percentage of her wealth. Between 2002 and 2006, she contributed billions from her then $16.3 billion net worth towards philanthropic efforts.[4]
Non-profit organizations in which Walton is actively serving include the national association of trustees and staff, corporate giving officers, and individual donors ? The Philanthropy Roundtable. The San Diego Natural History Museum where she is a board member, as well as the San Diego Zoological Society and the Mingei International Museum are also institutions in which she makes donations towards.[4] In 2006, Walton also donated her own old Victorian home to the International Community Foundation ? Center for Cross-Border Philanthropy, which was built in 1896 for former National City postmaster Oliver Noyes and is of historical significance. Since her donation, she has endowed $4 million towards the edifice's preservation.[4]
Additionally, she supports her family's own charitable foundation, the Walton Family Charitable Support Foundation, which prioritizes education and benefits colleges such as the University of Arkansas, the College of Business Administration of the University of Arkansas, and several other colleges, community trusts, universities and foundations. In 2007, her family's foundation donated as much as $1.6 billion.[4]
James Carr Walton[1] (born July 7, 1948)[1][3] is the youngest son of Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton and the Chairman of Arvest Bank.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walton_family
Yeah, Tony, those lazy ass Waltons do a whole lot of nothing.
If those jobs are so great why aren't you smart enough to go get one? Not qualified, right? Jealous, sure? But calling it theft? You aren't smart enough to understand who is bleeding you dry. Please don't be childish. Get a job for crying out loud.
Did someone tip over the Tony cart or something?
The sockpuppets are tripping over themselves defending Saint Warren aren't they..
Because she's the latest great thing. Team Donkey is all disappointed in the president and she's their new kwisatz haderach.
Chris Bray
There's a psychological component to all this: Elizabeth Warren made $532,000 in 2010, and her husband also holds an endowed chair at Harvard Law School. So they surely have household income over $800,000 a year, and probably approaching $1,000,000 a year. And she's telling a story about how "the rich" got that way off the backs of "the rest of us." Will someone in Massachusetts please ask Elizabeth Warren, in public, if she regards herself as rich?
She never said the rich got that way off the backs of the rest of us. She said everyone should pay their share of their benefit from living in this country. Define what you think "rich" is and then answer your own question. Now, what difference does it make? You want to see if Ms. Warren has a different definition of "rich"? What does that prove?
A willfully obtuse response. She contrasted "the rich" with "the rest of us." Period.
DJL
What is their (fair) share they should be paying? is there a limit to the benifits? If taxing all the rich at 100% of their income doesn't pay for all the "benifits". Do we reduce "benifits" or tax everybody more?
Good point, Chris. Yep, I consider them "rich."
I consider it to be useful to always ask redistributionists to define "rich" at the beginning of the conversation – using numbers only.
Andrew Szemeredy
"And she's telling a story about how "the rich" got that way off the backs of "the rest of us." Will someone in Massachusetts please ask Elizabeth Warren, in public, if she regards herself as rich?"
This is a personal attack, not addressing the points which the person made at all.
I find this sort of comment completely useless in a debate. It serves no useful purpose from a debating point of view.
Slinging mud is great in a war game or on a play ground for seventh-graders, but here…? on this forum?
Paul from Hamburg
As part of a nationwide anti-bullying effort, I believe that any person, regardless of age, sex, religion, immigration status, physical stature, moral fortitude, intellectual capability or country of birth should be punched in the nose for saying "I want to be clear".
If he or she can't be clear, I still think we must encourage the person to try and not stay muddy, murky, or confused.
The wish expressed in "I want to be clear" is an honest wish, which I wish could come true by simply saying it.
I want to be clear: This here mine is a silly comment, to break the monotony of a passionate debate, which nevertheless deals with a drab topic.
Warren didn't say anything that isn't social contract theory 101. I think she can be forgiven for giving such a lecture when the Republican platform seems very much to be that no tax increase, ever, should ever be tolerated. The rhetoric is anarchic, even if you claim you're OK with taxation [evil thieving] for some things.
I think libertarians must be aware that once they allow for the possibility that taxes are OK to pay for some collective goods, it simply becomes a difference of opinion on policy preferences that separates them from everyone else. Because the justifications for their preferences start relying on the arbitrary demands of the Constitution, or something. For some reason you guys need to be on the side of the good, while liberals are evil, whereas, if this defense is to be believed, the only difference is liberals believe in a few more taxpayer-funded services.
We can't debate the merits of those services, though–one side must be good and the other evil–because if we started debating merits you guys would quickly start losing.
Since there is another Tony on the site, I'll sign off. Keep watching Faux News. The rich are laughing all the way to the "too big to fail" bank.
"The rich are laughing all the way to the "too big to fail" bank."
And people like Elizabeth Warren voted to give the bank "too big to fail" status and to bail it out using taxpayers' money. What the dems don't seem to realize is that the government, no matter who is in charge, sucks up to the already wealthy and entrenched, and allows inefficient pseudo-monopolies to continue to exist when the market would not. Of course, to realize that you would have to get past the feel-good rhetoric and look at the results.
Actually TARP started under President Bush (43). But I expect you don't want to talk about that.
The issue isn't whether Tarp started under Bush it was whether Warren supported it.
And in case you missed it, ore just arrived, thios forum is not exactly full of Bush admirers.
Apparently the notion that there are people who think that both teams are wrong is something that's too hard for simpletons to understand.
Ah, yes, I remember when he came up with TARP and unilaterally passed it against the unanimous disapproval of Congressional Democrats, especially noble crusaders for the common man like Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid and Barack Obama, or the Democrat that would have been running things if Bush had lost the last election, John Kerry.
If you don't recall, the vote broke down like this:
Senate Ds: 39 – 9 (81%) in favor (including all four named above).
Senate Rs: 34 – 15 (69%) in favor (including presidential contender McCain).
House Ds: 172 – 63 (73%) in favor.
House Rs: 91 – 108 (54%) opposed.
In case you didn't notice, there are two trends — A) the more elite the office, the more favorable to TARP. B) Democrats were vastly more supportive at their respective rank than Republicans.
In fact, the House rejected the first attempt at passing TARP, with Democrats in favor of TARP 140-95 (60%) and Republicans opposed 65 – 133 (67%). However, we're a lawful Constitutional Republic in name only, so the Senate used a dirty trick they've developed to subvert the democratic intent of the Constitution (which requires that all spending bills originate in the House, the most representative part of government) to give TARP a second chance at life.
Looking at the facts, while both parties are dirty, Democrats are dirtier when it comes to bailing out bankers — surprising given that bankers like Goldman Sachs gave more to Repu… oh, wait, nevermind. I guess it isn't surprising at all.
But I expect you don't want to talk about that.
"Warren didn't say anything that isn't social contract theory 101"
yeah! I'm done too….off to the showers…to see what you know…turns up 😉
Here's an idea for the wealth-haters:
Institute *one* income level for everyone… $200K a year, without regard to what one does for a living (e.g., the guy who mows your yard makes as much as the CEO of General Electric, for example).
THEN… tax everyone at fifty percent of that income, with no deductibles for anything.
Make all investments illegal. No one gets to even sock any unspent money in an interest-bearing savings account down at Joe's Bank and Septic Tank Service, let alone buy stock in – oh, let's say – General Electric.
Problem solved! Wealth envy becomes a thing of the past, as *everyone* is now in the "upper five percent" of wage-earners.
Okay… $250K for a married couple. But no more exemptions if you have children, as people who do that are just filthy breeders – just ask Tony.
So… we have TWO income levels. That's it. Not one penny more. No mortgage deductions, no writing off anything business-related, and everyone has to shop at Costco and drive a Prius. Forgot to add that; very important that no one has more stuff than anyone else.
You struggle with gray areas.
Where? Where, in the fuck, Tony, is there one fucking "gray area" in that post?
None, that's my point.
That's because there shouldn't BE any.
And you struggle with basic math.
He knows what "half" is… as in "half your money belongs to the federal government".
But… but… that worthless Tenth Amendment means government doesn't HAVE to be "controlled"!
Logic fail.
Actually, quite a few people buy into that Randian premise.
Chaos Punk
Five bucks says Warren has a smartphone and a DVR and a bunch of other modern conveniences, and that she didn't buy any of them with a gun to her head. So why is she so mad at the people who offered to sell them?
Alas, the right question finally emerges. It's like being worthlessly stoned and everybody knows what the right thing to say is… but just can't get it to come to fruition.
Thanks Barton, I feel a little more sober today than usual. Excellent Rebuttal
Stoned Anarchist Hippie
Whoa, dude. I just thought of something… like, maybe it .. hmmm… almost had it.
Maybe it's not so bad selling a bunch of cool ass shit to people. We should totally go offer to replace that dude's window we smashed out last protest.
teapartydoc
People made of straw shouldn't set fire to straw men.
Your comments are silly. I have stood in many a hotel lobby or sat on many a flight beside an (always a male) individual shooting his mouth off about how it was "his money" and "no one else helped him get it". Over the last 30 years, I'd say 10 a year was about average. Get off your high horse and do some real work, 'eh?
Wealth envy solves absolutely nothing, Barnes.
Schempf
It's all about Dem's zero sum game mindset that if somebody is getting richer than somebody is getting poorer and hence we need policies to "right the wrong."
This notion that "We" are paying for the roads, schools, etc… is wrong. In reality the rich are paying for the roads that transport their goods as well as the education that teaches their employees.
Economics is not zero sum. There is no fixed amount of wealth. That is, if you have too many slices of pizza, I don't have to eat the box. Your money does not cause my poverty. Refusal to believe this is at the bottom of most bad economic thinking.
True, at any given moment, there is only so much wealth to go around. But wealth is based on productivity. Without productivity, there wouldn't be any economics, or any economic thinking, good or bad, or any pizza, or anything else. We would sit around and stare at rocks, and maybe later have some for dinner.
P.J. O'Rourke
I would only qualify that by saying that some resources are scarce, and scarcity does exist. So an upper bound limit to human productivity but clearly we are nowhere near that point. Even in energy, the most cited example of this scarcity, there are in fact "alternatives" to oil and gas that we can utilize when/if those run out. Land is also scarce, but again human creativity can overcome some of this scarcity by finding ways to better manage land use. Human creativity can overcome scarcity of some resources.
Jaron Hightower-Mills
This whole conversation is sad for two reasons:
1. Her statements are clearly a counter to the Grover Norquist pledge crowd and the corporations who use Congress's inability to have real positions on tax reform to push both actual taxes payed and tax rates for rich individuals and corporations toward zero.
2. Given the way a number of states have dealt with their mandate problems, it seems to me that it is not a universally accepted fact that we need to pay for social services responsibly. American voters prove over and over again that they want big government services on little government tax rates.
3. When we have corporations who pay nothing in taxes and receive sizable tax returns, we need to be reminded why we need a strong yet sensible tax system.
In American political conversations today, we only discuss reducing the tax burden. We need to constantly reminded of why we need taxes.
1. Except roads, police, firefighters, and education are paid for at the state level so businesses trying to lower taxes at the federal level has nothing to do with those.
2. It's not a universally excepted fact that we have to pay for social services period. If your dad is an insufferable prick, why should I have to take care of him?
3. Business damn well do pay taxes idiot. http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/ar…..43,00.html
About 2million companies paid 230million in income taxes in 2008. And that is just off of one chart I found on the IRS website.
You know what I say to every single person who tries to argue that we need to raise taxes? Reduce spending to pre 9/11 levels and we can talk. Cause if I remember 2000 well, there weren't massive amounts of old people dying in the street and children were receiving the same shitty education they are today.
Nope, sorry–there was no complexity to her argument at all. She's clearly targeting "industrialists" in the classic Marxist manner. It's the same rhetoric seen from the political left for the last 100+ years. That's why she said "factory owner" instead of "banker," "lawyer," or even "CEO"–because she knows such a term is a dog whistle amongst the political circles to whom she's pandering, and has been for decades.
And sooner or later such a game comes crashing down–especially when the bureaucracy keeps expanding.
We also have a large general population that pays little to nothing in taxes–and when the top quintile verifiabily pays most of the taxes (in spite of Warren's and Buffet's rhetoric to the contrary), perhaps the real conversation needs to be exactly what most Americans are willing to pay for. Because you could take every single penny from those making $250K or more a year, and it would close the deficit for exactly one year–what do you do after that?
In 1940, FDR ran the country on $160 billion, inflation-adjusted. In 1960, Eisenhower ran the country on $760 billion, inflation-adjusted. It now takes over $3.5 trillion to run the government, yet rather than confront the fact that Chuck Spinney's plans/reality mismatch is staring them right in the face, Warren, Obama, and the rest of the political left are arguing that even more taxation and even more complexity will solve the problem, when in fact it will just make it more expensive and much more difficult to execute.
I think she has the misconception that all businesspeople are stuffing their money away under the mattress. Everybody spends money, even rich people. The very act of trading and spending money in the marketplace does pay your resources forward by giving others opportunities to grow their businesses. Even if you're just going to the grocery store or Walgreens, you're helping create jobs (not just at the store, but also at the factories that make the goods the stores sell). This applies to all consumers, rich and poor, and the rich do qualify as consumers.
Also, while I like roads, I wish the government didn't force people to pay for them under the threat of going to jail. If these things the gov't provides are so great, why don't taxpayers have a choice whether to support them? Doesn't that seem a tad shady to you, Elizabeth? She's assuming everyone supports all the government's decisions, and that's not true. Does everyone in the US support the wars that our government fights? Everyone is forced to pay for those, whether they like it or not. The government also often takes peoples' property to give it to rich businesses (eminent domain) or flat out subsidizes big Wall Street companies (bailouts). Again, nobody has the choice not to support that. Police do fight crime, but sometimes they throw innocent people in jail or even kill innocent people (see the Kelly Thomas case or the myriad of no-knock SWAT team raids that often kill innocent bystanders due to something as simple as a wrong address). What about those who don't agree with their local police department's administration, or aren't satisfied with the service? Oops, they don't have a choice either. You've got no choice but to accept and fund the monopoly
So Warren is whitewashing what government does. Even the roads and education might be done better if there was competition instead of a government monopoly. Is it fair for people living in rural areas to pay for city roads with their taxes that they never use? What about city folks who pay for big Agriculture subsidies, while the local government makes it illegal for them to grow their own food (in a lot of cities it is actually illegal for residents to set up a garden on their own roof). It's an interesting irony for liberals to blame business for pollution, when the national highway system — which was a huge, centrally planned government project — created the infrastructure that so heavily favored car transportation over public transportation. It basically put the passenger rail industry out of business. Businesses have simply adapted to the reality that big government largely created in the first place.
The social contract is a myth. Assuming that just because something's a law it's the "social contract" that everyone agrees with is dangerous. A lot of people may not agree, but didn't have enough political clout to prevent the law. Even if it's a majority that decides on something, what about the minority who don't agree? They can't "opt out." Does Warren's social contract include throwing nonviolent medical marijuana users in jail? What about throwing women who use the morning after pill in jail? Probably not, but there's lots of social conservatives who do include those — and what's to stop them to implement their social contract when the pendulum swings their way?
Instead of a nebulous social contract, the focus should instead be on basic, inalienable human rights and liberties that are guaranteed regardless of which regime is in power. That may sound similar to a contract to begin with, but it's not. Contracts are negotiable. Human rights are not.
the constitution, how does it work?
paul ehrlich
Excellent article. Warren is a nut. But you didnt need to take a shot at Ayn Rand. May of us believe in her vision.
Yet another Dave
According to numbers I keep seeing, something like 42 percent of Americans pay no income tax at all. Don't they send their kids to public school; don't they drive on the roads; don't the police and firefighters protect them same as the rest of us? Why do they get a free ride?
I thought the whole point of the American dream was that anyone could work hard and eventually be wealthy here. So why are there so many people out there poised to punish those who actually pull it off? The Declaration of Independence says that the pursuit of happiness is an inalienable right … but be very careful you don't actually achieve it, you're only allowed to *pursue* it.
As has been noted time and again, very few people are against paying taxes (especially amongst the wealthy) nor do we have a problem with taxes helping to fund the programs she holds up as the holy grail. If it's fairness you truly seek, though, then consider a flat tax where everyone throws a little into the kitty. Because again, it's not just the wealthy we're talking about that use all those publicly funded services (heck, most of them don't even send their kids to public school, so there).
Federal income tax doesn't pay for any of those things. People that don't pay federal income tax are still paying for all of which you mentioned.
I like Reason, but this author clearly has an axe to grind. He's misreading both her comments and intent, which should be pretty clear. In rebuttal:
(a) I disagree. If the far right politicians and their constituents don't believe this premise (that people can make it alone), then their rhetoric should stop reflecting that belief. People don't seem to understand the social contract anymore – even the basic philosophical underpinnings of it.
(b) It's hard to make her statement without a you/us. Reading class warfare into it is disingenuous. He knows she's not some populist proletariat warrior. She knows more about capitalism than most, as both a business owner and a harvard law professor on contracts.
(c) I said the same thing when posting her quote since a bunch of righties got butt hurt over it. Her quote isn't arguing a particular tax policy or marginal rate. It's trying to simply remind people of what the social contract is and why we pay taxes. Again, the tea partiers and other wing nuts can't even process this anymore. They lack basic civics education. I completely disagree with the last sentence and the author is playing with stats. The reason richest 5th pay 64% of federal income (which ignores payroll, state and local taxes were are far less progressive) is because they have amassed so much wealth in the last 30 yrs. That stat tells me there's a much bigger problem of too few owning too much. That's bad for capitalism and bad for democracy.
(4) Again, judging by the current GOP and its most vocal supporters, it would be hard to know that people don't mind paying for teachers, roads, etc. We have one of the lowest % of federal money going to infrastructure compared to our peers and the GOP refuses to invest more. It's crumbling. Teacher's unions have been busted and so on (arguments aside re: public unions, I'm just saying). Clearly, more than anarchists hate paying any taxes. As to the Iraq war and corporate welfare, he's only preaching to the left and libertarians. The right has been pretty quiet about cutting any of the above.
(5) Ok. Not sure why this is even mentioned. No one is arguing here.
(6) Again, he's reading anger into her comments where there isn't any. If she is angry, it's not at the rich or captains of industry, it's at the people who don't understand why we pay taxes and why we have government.
(7) Straw man. She didn't say steep taxes. She's simply arguing the underlying social contract. She's making the argument because, in the current political climate where people say stupid shit like "government is the problem", we can't have an adult, rational argument regarding tax rates. How can you fix government when you don't believe in it? Further, raising rates back to what they were a few years ago is hardly equivalent to mowing someone's lawn without asking and then demanding payment. That analogy is terrible and, again, based on a straw man.
(8) Straw man again. Where does he get this shit? She doesn't know any people who think govt. or tax should be small? Where does he have evidence of that or evidence that she wants it to be big and highly taxed? What the fuck is he talking about?
Um, she's not arguing for any "social contract" or the government's legal right to tax its citizens. She IS making a case for higher taxes on the "captains of industry", as she categorizes them as the beneficiary that leeches of the benefactor that is the "rest of us".
That makes no sense, of course. The rich also pay for the police, the road, teachers, and safety nets. In addition to paying MORE taxes by the virtue of their wealth, may employ the "rest of us". Using Warren's logic, the business owner may very well insist that they provide for the "rest of us", since we need the salary from our jobs to live and pay the taxes that fund the teachers and the roads.
Yes, the consumers make businesses profitable. But consumers do need food, water, clothes, cars, housing and other necessaties to survive, and businesses can provide. Supply and demand, two sides benefitting from the other. Warren chose to only one side of the equation.
"The rich also pay for the police, the road, teachers, and safety nets."
The "rich" pay for the largest part of all government expenses, because they pay the largest amount of taxes. But the rich still has no say what to pay for and how much of it with their taxes paid. That is why government exists. The Government decides that, and theoretically the "rich" or other individuals have no say in it either. Only the government, which is of course congress and the senate on the federal level.
The rich pays more, and the poor take more. The rich also has potentially much more enjoyment out of life, and the poor, much less.
But the rich get back more than what they pay, this is the first reason how they got rich and keep on getting richer. The poor also get more than what they pay, that's how they stay alive.
Unfortunately, this is causing a deficit right now, coz the government gets less than what they pay. This is the problem we talk about, I think.
Thank you Kramer.
Obviously, many of the people who commented here — and the author himself — can't get beyond their own slanted rhetoric. They simply Attack anyone who doesn't agree with them 100%.
Thank you for injecting some REASON into the discussion. (Also see Dante's comments.)
tim_lebsack
re: "(4) Outside of a few anarchist collectives, there isn't a soul around who minds paying taxes for roads, cops, firemen, or schoolteachers."
I do not consider myself an anarchist, but I despise paying cops to fight the drug war, firemen who should be paid by my insurance company, and schoolteachers who haven't taught me a damn thing.
Let's not pretend that employing people isn't also beneficial for business owners, shall we? Let's also not pretend that the republican part, who want to lower taxes for the wealthy but not for anyone else, actually support small government. They are the one who started an unnecessary war in Iraq. They are the ones who want to tell who we can and cannot marry. The ones who want to tell us what chemicals are okay to put in our body and which ones aren't. And if you think that rich republicans are lining up to pay their fair share of taxes, then maybe you're the one living in a work of fiction. In the midst of an economic crisis, the republicans are rejecting the idea of taxing the wealthy, who can damn well afford it, a little more so that we can afford to pay for the large government that republicans in this day an age seem so fond of.
You're living in the past. The republican party still stands for small government in the same way it is still the party of Lincoln: Not at all.
DDavis
"Reasonable people can debate where to set marginal tax rates. But when the richest fifth of Americans pay 64 percent of federal income taxes.."
Non Sequitur. That 64 percent is not a tax rate, and it only refers to income taxes.
Yeah, so? It doesn't refute the fact that the upper quintile pays most of the taxes–which the leftists on this thread have been vigorously denying.
The wealthy pay the majority of federal income taxes. But the wealthy also get the biggest benefit from the infrastructure, court system, educated workforce, and a calm social structure that doesn't require armed guards and armored cars to go to the supermarket. I'm sure most of them wouldn't want to be seen as freeloaders. They should pay for what they get.
Ballchinian
But the wealthy also get the biggest benefit from the infrastructure, court system, educated workforce, and a calm social structure that doesn't require armed guards and armored cars to go to the supermarket.
They are the wealthiest. That's the measure of worth in the USA. The bigger the income, the bigger the benefit. No citation needed, I assert.
If you need citation, tell them I said so.
Mike S.
every single day the Republican Congressmen are on TV spouting off about how "we just can't raise taxes on the job creators" – yet it's exactly those "job creators" who would do nothing more than cut employees to enhance the bottom line.
Just look at the last 3 years, look at profits, look at employment.
Shall we go on to discuss the feigned concern for deficits in the Capitol?
If so, guess we'll have to air out some views on corporate welfare!
The sad part is that you actually expect this article to be taken seriously and under these economic circumstances, and with the sociopathic economic rhetoric that is trotted out everyday by the MSM.
Let us guess, Mike… you're one of those people who believe in the sky fairy who says "we can tax our way out of this"… right?
Just to reiterate:
It now takes over $3.5 trillion to run the government, yet rather than confront the fact that Chuck Spinney's plans/reality mismatch is staring them right in the face, Warren, Obama, and the rest of the political left are arguing that even more taxation and even more complexity will solve the problem, when in fact it will just make it more expensive and much more difficult to execute.
Backlink Service
They lead to actual facts that disprove your idiotic statements. Try to learn the difference between your ass and a hole in your head.
Counselling London
I think that this is a very good thing to use in this time and it will help so much in future for the work of it.
New listed discount price fake ray ban sunglasses have sold on our shop online, as the style of fake ray bans have a breakthough in optical technology, ray ban new aviator, ray ban new wayfarer are more loved by people, to our surprise, cheap ray bans have a role in the year round.
JeanSF
1) "There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own," she lectures. "Nobody. You built a factory out there? Good for you! But I want to be clear."
Dear Miss Warren: A lot of entrepreneurs really did build that factory on their own?it is referred to as "Sweat Equity." Sweat Equity Definition: "The equity that is created in a company or some other asset as a direct result of hard work by the owner(s). .." [Wikipedia]. This is a term and concept well-known in entrepreneurial studies within (and without) business schools. This does not mean that there may or may not have been contributing staff?but many start-ups and fledgling companies were, and are, forged by the visionaries who created them.
2) "You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for."
Dear Miss Warren: Many, many companies construct(ed) their own roads. In fact, this is one of the roles of government that some of our Founding Fathers considered possibly useful, but not an appropriate use of limited resources in a financially-strapped country?which is where the U.S. was when we were starting out. And where we are now, one may argue!
3) "You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate."
Dear Miss Warren: Many, many persons were (and are) self-educated, educated by their parents, and also educated by companies that hired them. I personally, have experienced all three phenomena in my personal education?please don't faint dead away on me here?this really, really does happen!
4) "You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that maurauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory . . . ."
Dear Miss Warren: I don't know where you grew up, but my father hired his own night security watchmen for his factory. Most factories also have their own fire paraphernalia (sprinkler systems and so forth) because the fire department wouldn't be able to get there in time.
You could obtain cheaper insurance from your Commercial Insurance Company for these security measures. In fact, I worked for a Commercial Insurance Company that required these security measures?otherwise they would not insure your factory. These are common, private professions that do still exist.
I once found it necessary to hire a security company temporarily for my testing laboratory in Hayward, CA?the police were not an appropriate solution for the security we needed.
We were also too far away in the country for the County Sheriff to protect us, so most folks in our rural area kept shotguns (and knew how to use them?including me at a tender age). Interestingly, no-one found it necessary to lock their doors, and no-one attempted to steal the family silver.
If you know anything about Washington, D.C., the place is crawling with private security persons. Apparently someone didn't think the D.C. police force would be sufficient for that task?e.g., the Protective Service for the President is an example most folks know of?and there are many more folks don't know about! I have a friend who works as a security person for a hospital in Alameda, CA (where we have a city police force).
So much for your taxpayer-funded police and fire forces!
By the way, I've lived in many, many industrialized cities, as well as, rural areas?places some folks may consider the dregs of the dregs. I did not have the opportunity to observe "maurauding bands [that] would come and seize everything at your factory . . . ." This one is waaaay out there, Miss Warren, and smacks of an attempt to frighten folks with ghosts and goblins that don't exist!
5) "Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea?God bless! Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along."
Dear Miss Warren: What can I say to this? According to you: a) The entrepreneur/visionary is not responsible for having created a reality from a dream, b)He didn't build the roads himself out of clay, c) He didn't educate his employees, and d) He didn't secure his facilities himself. (Please see my responses to Points 1 through 4 above as they pertain to 5-a through 5-d.)
Now, you do not want this factory owner to have "retained earnings" to re-invest so that he can build a future for all of us!
Let's start with the basis of Economics: Mary has an apple tree and she spends the day making delicious apple dumplings. Mary's neighbor, John, is a poet and great elocutionist who spends the day composing a great work. After the day is done, Mary shares her apple dumplings with John, and John recites his poetry for Mary.
Mary and John enrich each other with their respective talents and execution of those talents and sharing of those talents?this is called an "Exchange Economy" and is the basis of Capitalism, where persons can enrich each other by sharing/exchanging the fruits of their labors (please forgive the pun in Mary's case).
Back to the factory owner: He sells his products and pays for his supplies and labor with a denominated currency (we don't use pukka shells anymore?to the best of my knowledge). If things went well, he has "retained earnings" to self-insure and re-invest for the security of his factory, his employees, and his vendors, as well as, build a future for even more employees and vendors.
If, Miss Warren, you think it is a really bad idea for our factory owner not to do any of the things I listed in the previous paragraph with his "retained earnings" then you will condemn all of us to a more miserable future than we are already experiencing. God help you and God help us!
If I were a Massachusetts resident, you certainly would not get my vote?you don't live in the same world the rest of us do who have actually had to make a living and therefore you cannot contribute effectively as a representative of the people of Massachusetts.
'Good for you,' Miss Warren!… 'But I want to be clear:' I will do everything in my power to prevent you from misleading and deceiving the people of Massachusetts so that they do not make the mistake of electing you?and just to protect myself from people like you!
Jean SF: "Back to the factory owner: He sells his products and pays for his supplies and labor with a denominated currency (we don't use pukka shells anymore?to the best of my knowledge). If things went well, he has "retained earnings" to self-insure and re-invest for the security of his factory, his employees, and his vendors, as well as, build a future for even more employees and vendors."
This and other examples are false. We talk about income taxes paid which must be increased. The activities which you describe here are before-taxes expenses, so they don't come into play at all on the taxes of the captain of industry.
I mean to say that the retained earnings are not part of what go into improving the factory. Retained earnings that are taxable come out of monies left over AFTER the improvements on the factory and needed infrastructure are paid for by the factory owner.
Much of your comment has this same basic accounting fallacy built into it.
Please notice I am not into names-calling and angry demoralizing. I do keep this civil at all times, and I expect others to do the same. It's my first time here, I am not familiar with the debating culture here. That's why I said this, to keep it civil. I am not accusatory, but preemptive with this request.
SaulOhio
October.1.2011 at 6:17 am
I object to the phrase "Outside an Ayn Rand Novel". Warren's argument is a strawman of even Objectivism. The heroes of Ayn Rand novels insist on paying for everything they get. They simply insist that it be provided voluntarily by the private sector.
Next time when you have a one night stand,don't forget to thank their parents by card and give a little to their retirement fund.
Remember you didn't get laid by your own.
Novista
I would ask Elizabeth:
The 'rest of us' according to the 2011 statistics includes over 76 million federal tax filers who pay NO tax.
That's a lot of people getting a free ride, no?
Also, what's the difference between James T. Hill and any misnamed 'robber baron'?
Byron Winchell
Also, Prof. Warren lectures people who are free to use other countries' infrastructure, educational capital and legal structure to manufacture etc. And they have done so in greater and greater numbers, generally because of policies favored by people like Warren.
MoreFreedom
Warren seems to think only the "rest of us pay taxes" ignoring the fact that employers pay a lot of taxes just for hiring someone: Social Security, Medicare and unemployment. Plus they pay lots of other taxes: corporate (or personal income tax if a sole proprietorship), property, and others.
The reality is that half the people (who don't pay income tax) are the ones benefiting from taxes the rest of us pay. They should pay something.
UGG boots classic
Your essay is good, I like it very much. Here I would like to share with you some things :
Cheap UGG Boots http://www.classicuggs-uk.com —– ercai
DonnyBGoode
Check out my YouTube video debunking Warren's claims….give it a fair watching and comment please.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_oLAzGr3Uc
Taxes go into a hub of treasure chest, the Treasury. Doled out to build roads, infrastructure; and doled out to bail out corporate bums, government workers, politicians and their enemies. The process muddles up the connection between the source and the sink of money. We say, or the author says, dear government, please pay for roads, but not for corporate bums, for instance. In reality, no individual has a say what to pay for. Furthermore no group or party has a say in that, either, because this sort of change takes a long time to implement, so no government will start the implementation — too risky, the party will unpopularize itself with a whole bunch of people, no matter where they start to cut back on 'giving back', where they start the stopping of public money going out.
But the crux remains that there is more GOING OUT then COMING IN. Government can cut back on spending, but only for a huge political loss of votes. Government can increase revenues with no punishment. Government can't increase taxes on bottom one-fifth, because they don't have any sizable income. Gov can increase taxes on middle class, from top of bottom one-fifth, to bottom of top one-fifth, but then the middle class won't be able to pursue his lifestyle, incl. buying DVDs and cell phones, as the author suggests. That will have an effect on the captains of industry, as they won't be able to sell their retail products, which means that they will go bankrupt themselves. So the middle three-fifths COULD, theoretically, pay more taxes. But in practice that would lead to doom.
There is only one choice left that SHALL NOT FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE THE FABRIC OF SOCIETY and which is not part of an unwritten social contract, but part of mathematical laws: the top one-fifth must pay more taxes. This is not to punish them or to thwart their growth or freedom. This is not so because we are radicals. This is so only because they are the only ones with disposable income to pay more taxes.
This is so because this is the only way to do it if you want to increase taxes. They, the top one-fifth, alone, can afford to pay more; and we don't ask them to suffer, we beg them (with a gun to their heads) to save the nation and the world. If they refuse, well, the world will die. So much the better, I won't weep for it.
The world is no place for an old man.
December.6.2011 at 5:48 am
Great post, thank for share! I will return this blog to read more useful posts.
san diego injury lawyer
If not for the government lifting them up, they would be living in caves I guess.
March.27.2012 at 4:52 am
I am happy to find your distinguished way of writing the post.
Felt Ball Rugs
May.7.2012 at 12:28 am
A woman who has worked hard all her life, raised a family, educated herself, and worked to pass that knowledge on to others.