Well, explained more than F-you, I’ve got mine.
Gleaned from Pharyngula, a post from Jadehawk.
I think that it’s possible to have libertarian values and still like things like governments and taxes and social programs.
yup. That’s called being liberal, progressive, or even anarcho-syndicalist, depending on the exact ratio of “libertarian” values to government/taxes/social programs
I concede the point that the phrase Libertarian has been tainted by the Tea Party
oh it was tarnished way before that, sometime around the time free-marketeers stole the label from what are currently called leftwing anarchists.
This is for reference for those who are curious:
oh FFS. Weve gone over this before. almost every single point is phrased in such a way that it, by omission, permits the limiting of freedoms of the non-privileged. a few examples:
Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government. Our support of an individual’s right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices. […] Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government’s treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships.
IOW: if a privately owned hospital wants to deny you visitation rights because you’re gay, well, that’s tough shit: not only can’t the government tell them to stop on principle, you’re not allowed to legally make yourself your loved one’s “next of kin” to gain legal visitation rights on an individual level, because marriages aren’t the government’s business.
Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.
IOW, libertarians don’t want the government to fund PP, because poor women don’t deserve the same right to “conscientious consideration” than rich women do.
The only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual rights — life, liberty, and justly acquired property — against aggression.
IOW, libertarians support power-balances in negotiations, since only employers are allowed to consist of more than one person; employees may not.
libertarians want all members of society to have abundant opportunities to achieve economic success. A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner.
well, too fucking bad then that you can either have a competitive, or a free market, not both, since a free market tends towards monopoly over time, since competition is expensive. And evidence suggests that libertarians in fact support a free, non-competitive market.
Property rights are entitled to the same protection as all other human rights.
IOW, owning shit is just as, or more, important than not starving, not freezing to death, and not dying of preventable disease.
Where property, including land, has been taken from its rightful owners by the government or private action in violation of individual rights, we favor restitution to the rightful owners.
except the Indians. They can’t have America back, we stole it fair and square.
All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor.
except workers, since we’re against the minimum wage. workers should hand over most of the fruits of their labor to their corporate overlords.
We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution
again, because owning shit is more important than not starving, not freezing to death, and not dying of preventable disease.
Education, like any other service, is best provided by the free market, achieving greater quality and efficiency with more diversity of choice.
IOW, libertarians know nothing about education, except that poor people don’t need it. Oh, and positive externalities don’t exist, which is why the free market will have no problem allocating the right amount of education to the right people; meaning not-poor people.
We favor restoring and reviving a free market health care system.
poor people don’t deserve the freedom that comes from knowing that the next bout of illness isn’t going to kill and/or bankrupt you.
etc. ad nauseam. The fucking platform itself is evidence for what people have been saying on this thread: that libertarianism supports the rights of the dominant group to remain the dominant group; it does not support factual freedom for everyone, only the freedom of those who can buy everything.
Thanks JadeHawk :) Oh and another great summary from the same thread…
John Scalzi wrote the best paragraph ever on glibertarians. Here it is:
I really don’t know what you do about the “taxes are theft” crowd, except possibly enter a gambling pool regarding just how long after their no-tax utopia comes true that their generally white, generally entitled, generally soft and pudgy asses are turned into thin strips of Objectivist Jerky by the sort of pitiless sociopath who is actually prepped and ready to live in the world that logically follows these people’s fondest desires. Sorry, guys. I know you all thought you were going to be one of those paying a nickel for your cigarettes in Galt Gulch. That’ll be a fine last thought for you as the starving remnants of the society of takers closes in with their flensing tools.
http://whatever.scalzi.com/2010/09/26/tax-frenzies-and-how-to-hose-them-down/
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
36 comments
August 24, 2011 at 3:14 pm
TheUnrepublican
Very good attempt at an explanation of libertarianism and the difference between your Ron Paul libertarians and your more left-leaning libertarians.
With that said, I am curious as to how one can reconcile true left wing politics with libertarian principles.
I don’t buy it.
You cannot be leftist and libertarian at the same time. Now, you can be socially liberal and fiscally conservative, which in my opinion is true libertarianism (not the tea-bagger bullshit). But that is hardly what I would classify you as. Unless of course you are against welfare, the federal government, etc.
LikeLike
August 24, 2011 at 6:43 pm
Bleatmop
“except the Indians. They can’t have America back, we stole it fair and square.”
That sums it right there. They don’t give a shit about freedom or liberty or fairness for all. They care about the rich being able to grab all they can and being able to take a dump on everyone else at the same time. Because, once property is not a public good but only for the few, we can have a country where we have Lords and Ladies who get to rule in lands they claim as theirs and the serfs who work for below sustenance. It’s called feudalism.
LikeLike
August 24, 2011 at 10:53 pm
The Arbourist
What’s gotten into you as Bleat? You’ve been hitting the high notes of Win with every post here as of late. Carry on. :)
I cannot abide by libertarian principles because for one, you can’t nail down what they are, and two they seem to be based in some sort of utopian fantasy world where everyone is rich and it is profit for all. The problem is that, like utopian socialism, once the ugly whiff of reality intrudes, the jig is up.
LikeLike
August 25, 2011 at 6:41 am
TheUnrepublican
You have never posted a comment that I agree with more than the one right there.
The utopian dream of libertarianism shares the same tragic flaw with that of the utopian dream of socialists…
A gross underestimate of the inherent selfishness of mankind.
That is why, in my humble opinion, big government is the only way to ensure both liberty and equality for all (not to mention environmental protection).
:)
LikeLike
August 25, 2011 at 11:20 pm
Bleatmop
Lol, I dunno. I guess I’m having a good week :)
LikeLike
August 26, 2011 at 9:52 am
Vern R. Kaine
“except the Indians. They can’t have America back, we stole it fair and square.
Haha! If wacko Libertarianism needs to go, so does the left crying about this “stealing land from the Indians” as an attack on the right. First, no one on the left is handing their homes or land “back” over to the Indians, and none ever would because they believe at the end of the day that it’s theirs – and therefore no one should be able to just take it away. These are the same property rights that real Libertarians talk about which the left, whether they want to admit it or not, support through their actions even if they’re too gutless to say it with words.
Second, it’s a sad joke when liberals act like they were ever really on the other side of that issue – same as so-called Libertarians who take advantage of social programs and government handouts, like social security and farm subsidies.
Third, you’re talking in a dream world again where systems are looked at and discussed in their purest or most absolute form. None of these “pure” systems work because society’s motives aren’t pure, and we can’t have absolute Libertarianism or Socialism or anything of that sort because nothing in society is absolute. These arguments, then, just eventually just spin into nowhere and because of that, they are ultimately useless.
Fourth, it seems that no one in this room (with the exception of one or two people) knows anyone who is financially wealthy, or successful. Instead, it just seems like a bunch of financially “middle class” people who appease themselves by criticizing people they don’t know, and things that they – through proof of their own situation – simply don’t understand.
I personally believe that someone with right-leaning views who provides 100 people with a job does more “charity” than someone on the left who donates $25 a month to Oxfam. All the business owners I know are very decent and charitable people who see it as their responsibility as leaders to take care of not only their staff, but also their communities. Instead, you guys sit back and base your criticisms on a collection of what, headlines you read about Fortune 500 companies?, Or worse, perhaps the headlines of a select 4 or 5? You have no real clue as to how the other 28 million or so other businesses think or operate.
Based on my experience within that population, you miss the true point of “Libertarianism” here. One example is you equating it with the opposite of charity. Contrary to your outside belief(s), a real Libertarian is not against charity, but rather against the government dictating who they should give to and how much, with money that they themselves have rightfully earned. They’re not against tax per se, they’re against excessive and unnecessary tax that only feeds government waste. You talk about Indian rights – look up how much of the natural resource revenues get filtered to the government versus what comes back in America. A real Libertarian would say that the Indians should have the right to manage these natural resource revenues on their own.
For another, never having had a dialogue with anyone truly successful in that 28 million population of Capitalists out there, you misrepresent the actual intent of their actions and with that, also their character, because by definition they have to be “Libertarian” to a large extent as well. These people have risked more to do more and to ultimately give more. I know a lot of “Libertarians”, and I know quite a few “Liberals”, and when put side-by-side, hour for hour, and dollar for dollar, I have yet to find any Liberal who actually does more or gives more than the so-called “Libertarians” that I know do.
Regardless, whether it’s hardcore Libertarians or hard core left-wingers/socialists/whatever, I think both simply want to sit back and vilify the other in order to appease their own guilt concerning the life of mediocrity that each side has settled for. Easier for some to blame some group and co-miserate than actually work hard individually to improve things, I suppose, and I think posts like these just give those people more of an excuse to love where they’re at and hate where they could be.
LikeLike
August 26, 2011 at 12:28 pm
TheUnrepublican
Very good post. You pointed out some very real truths that many people would hardheartedly ignore.
I do disagree with your views on charity. You fail to realize that a large percentage of the wealthy were born with that advantage; a vast majority of the wealthy wields power beyond that of the average man. Without the government to get involved there, you could not realistically expect the wealthy to do the right thing. Unless of course, you want to ignore the last 5,000 years or so of recorded history.
LikeLike
August 26, 2011 at 3:58 pm
Vern R. Kaine
Actually, i don’t disagree with that. I don’t consider the “born with a silver spoon” crowd to be Capitalists. I consider their behavior to be more like “royalty”, who feel they somehow have divine right and are just as out of touch with the common people as the kings and queens were 5,000 years ago.
In contrast, I find those who have become successful through their own efforts to be very charitable and considerate of those less fortunate. I believe this is due in large part to their ability to relate to them.
LikeLike
August 26, 2011 at 6:17 pm
TheUnrepublican
Good clarification, and you may very well be right. I don’t know any wealthy people personally – save for my boyfriends aunt. She married into money, and is leaving the bulk of it to the local university when she passes.
Having said that, I still believe that the wealthy are not taxed nearly enough. Even the most generous philanthropists give away only pennies in comparison to the size of their wallets; they’re not hurting for anything, but people in the third world are.
A sad and inconvenient truth that those of us who had the luxury of being born in a wealthy part of the world must face, is that the responsibility of righting the wrongs of our forebearers falls on us. The great compromise that is the modern day interpretation of social justice cowers in the face of starving children, all over the world, every day.
A more relevant question, Mr. Kaine, is what are we doing about it?
LikeLike
August 27, 2011 at 9:21 am
Vern R. Kaine
“Having said that, I still believe that the wealthy are not taxed nearly enough.”
I know you’re not coming at this from the left, necessarily, but here’s the problem that leaves the left in theory-land: just like Obama can’t for the life of him submit a budget or produce anything that can be actually scored by the CBO right now, the left always sits there and says “not enough” or “more” when it comes to how much someone else other than them has to pay. If it’s correct that they should pay, it’s still not accurate as to how much and when nothing’s definitive, nothing happens. It’s like telling people a crisis is going to come. Unless you tell people when, most do nothing, as we’ve seen.
“Even the most generous philanthropists give away only pennies in comparison to the size of their wallets.”
I concede that there’s a moral issue here where you’ll see New York socialites donating hundreds of thousands to save a building when there are inner-city kids blocks away who could eat on that money for a year, but that gets into the “born wealthy” vs. “made wealthy” topic from before.
As for the fraction that the wealthy “give away”, I believe the perspective is skewed in a number of ways. First, the same choice that you have in how much of your EARNED money you give away vs how much someone forces you to give away is the same choice any American should have. This points to taxes, but in regards to taxes, the real question is “taxes for what?” If you increased the gas tax to fix roads, the rich are still going to be filling up their limousines, private jets, and their boats. Fine. Increase taxes just because a government is bloated and overspent? Because mayor’s salaries and pension situations are unrealistic and ridiculous? That’s a different story. If we’re truly talking about contributing to humanitarian causes, why not have the government increase the charitable contribution tax deduction for local charities that either do local or international work? Governments are reluctant to do that because they’d rather have it flow through them and have LESS to go to these causes. I believe the bulk of our tax increases right now go to nothing but government waste.
Third, do you really know what percentage of the wealthy’s income actually sits in idle cash? I don’t know any billionaires, but as for millionaires (net worth <$100m) my experience has been that much of their "safe" money is in T-bills, which is investment in the government, or CD's in banks which the banks then (are supposed to) use to provide credit to the middle class, therefore an "investment" (although indirect) into the middle class. They're heavily invested in stock portfolios, which of course (is supposed to) provide capital to companies for growth, and charities and associations and universities and arts foundations and (usually) their church. On top of that, they're still paying over 50% of the country's tax burden. Now they have to be forced to pay more for no other real reason than the government has so grossly mismanaged itself? It's like the fat, spoiled, teenage kid that keeps coming back to his parents for more and more money with the excuse that "yeah, I drank and ate and partied it all away, but if you don't give me more, I'll starve". Wouldn't the prudent thing first be to put the kid on a diet? Give him a budget? Put some rules in place before you give again? In this case, it's like everyone's saying, "Yeah, but the parents are rich. They can afford it, so give first and just discuss those other things later."
Fourth, there's a problem with the current definition of wealthy. The left always paints everyone with the same brush, whether it's a Fortune 500 CEO or a small business owner. "Wealthy" right now is defined as $250k or more. I fully and wholeheartedly agree that the tax code needs to change, and the perks that billionaire and billionaire companies get is ridiculous and needs to change also, but people don't vote with either their ballot or their dollar, so it never does – even after a crisis. How many middle class people pulled their money out of Citigroup, or Bank of America and put it into community banks after the financial collapse? Hardly any. Plus, the "tax the rich" thing is a ploy that solves nothing. i guarantee you that for every dollar politicians will "say" they're now taxing the rich, they're offering loopholes behind it to keep all the donations and support, and future jobs for them. It's a distraction to make the middle class think the problem will be solved when it truly won't be. We're supposed to be keeping our government in check, and we're not.
Thanks for reading this far! My final points are these: middle class Republicans largely vote for what affects them, not what affects some billionaire they read about or see on TV. You have the appearance that they're defending and fighting for billionaires and private jets largely because right now, because of the current system, they're lumped in with them. When the government's talking about taxing the rich right now, they're talking about largely taxing the Republican middle class.
Lastly, we've never had an income and "class gap" like we have now. This didn't exist to the same extent when the Founding Fathers formed the country nor did it exist in even the 60's, 70's, or 80's to the extent that it exists now. The tax code needs to change to reflect the new reality in this country or things will only continue to get worse.
LikeLike
August 27, 2011 at 10:05 am
Vern R. Kaine
“A more relevant question, Mr. Kaine, is what are we doing about it?”
About starving African children? I’m tempted to ask how much of your discretionary income goes to that and with that percentage, why not more (smile), but if you’re looking for my opinion on how we fix the world, here’s three rules that I have when considering charities in meeting my “Contribution” need:
1) “Invest in the spirit.” Don’t waste charity on the hopeless. You can’t get sick enough to heal one person.
2) “Teach people to fish.” All handouts are for is appeasing our own guilt, which is selfish, counterproductive, and short-sighted. Don’t create consumers, create producers who can then help others.
3) “Do it yourself.” Don’t be lazy and expect governments or charities to do all the work that you don’t care to do.
4) “Don’t fight nature.” Don’t waste charity on the helpless.
I can apply these rules both domestically and internationally, and virtually to any cause as it guides my decisions both at home and abroad.
Applied to America’s situation:
1) “Invest in the spirit.” We’re not investing in freedom, growth, enterprise, or entrepreneurship right now, which to me is the spirit of America. We’re investing in economic slavery and artificial value. More credit options should be opened up to small businesses and startups.
2) “Teach people to fish.” Terrible lack of focus on education right now, and men are turning into bums and sissies, not leaders.
3) “Do it yourself.” I teach courses on finance and entrepreneurship for disadvantaged people, and I contribute directly (and anonymously) without using charities or government programs.
4) “Don’t fight nature.” There are always going to be winners and losers, but give people an even playing field, the chance to adapt, and the chance to decide whether they’ll be a loser or not.
LikeLike
August 27, 2011 at 11:25 am
The Arbourist
Now they have to be forced to pay more for no other real reason than the government has so grossly mismanaged itself? It’s like the fat, spoiled, teenage kid that keeps coming back to his parents for more and more money with the excuse that “yeah, I drank and ate and partied it all away, but if you don’t give me more, I’ll starve”.
Grossly mismanaged or systematically distorted to benefit a certain class of society? I get the government waste angle, but at the same time government does certain things better and more efficiently than the private sector ever could. Consider fire, police, and garbage collection. Also, consider the case of the US military, has contracting out been a good thing, or a bad thing on the whole? Has private contracting made it safer for the people in the army, or just more profitable for the business class?
Could it be because the government has been systematically underfunded because the rich, through a bought congress and control of the levers of power, want to starve the government of funds?
LikeLike
August 27, 2011 at 12:00 pm
The Arbourist
and therefore no one should be able to just take it away. These are the same property rights that real Libertarians talk about which the left, whether they want to admit it or not, support through their actions even if they’re too gutless to say it with words.
So then, arbitrarily, we’ll decide when the land ownership comes into being a “right”. Because the violence we visited on the people that were here before us is inconsequential and good heavens we were
committing genocidecivilizing them and taming the land. I hope when it is our turn on the short end of the stick the people who are ‘civilizing’ us have a touch more compassion.Instead, it just seems like a bunch of financially “middle class” people who appease themselves by criticizing people they don’t know, and things that they – through proof of their own situation – simply don’t understand.
Wow, how to be insulting and argue poorly all in one sentence. Vern, knowing or not knowing rich people personally is not a reasonable basis to judge whether a critique is valid. Furthermore, if we are going to be class conscious, critique from outside of one’s class is usually closer to reality that a examination of ones own condition because, naturally, bias does come into play.
All the business owners I know are very decent and charitable people who see it as their responsibility as leaders to take care of not only their staff, but also their communities.
That’s nice Vern, but the others that are exploiting the poor, pillaging resources and desecrating the planet get a free pass because of the people you know are A-1 stand up citizens. Such insular thinking is a requirement for the “fuck you, I’ve got mine” Libertarian mode of thought that this post is meant to expose and criticize.
You have no real clue as to how the other 28 million or so other businesses think or operate.
The answer starts and ends with but one word, profit. And really, I’m thinking you don’t have much of a ‘real clue’ or probably about as much as I do about how 28 million or so businesses operate either.
Contrary to your outside belief(s), a real Libertarian is not against charity,
Ah, and No True Scotsman eats quiche either.
They’re not against tax per se, they’re against excessive and unnecessary tax that only feeds government waste.
You call arguments about Libertarianism earlier “ultimately useless”, yet decide to throw in your own anti-government trope about government waste. Ah, if only things were privatized, only then could we realize true efficiency. Of course, we won’t talk about ‘externalities’ or profit motive, or any of the other other things that make private industry inefficient and dependent on the state for their continued operation.
I personally believe that someone with right-leaning views who provides 100 people with a job does more “charity” than someone on the left who donates $25 a month to Oxfam.
Ah, perhaps we should encourage more of the entrepreneurial spirit when it comes to the children being fed by that 25 dollar oxfam donation. Just stop dying, and lets make a business plan. I’m glad that 100 people have jobs, also I’m glad that perhaps one child should not have to starve to death in a world that has the capacity, but not the will to feed him.
LikeLike
August 27, 2011 at 10:30 pm
TheUnrepublican
I will admit that you have a very strong way of arguing your points. Now, I don’t have the gift of gab that you have, and I am still trying to take it all in, so bear with me. But as to your “three rules” point, I would like to address something now…
I think it would be unfair to apply that rule to the children of the third world. Why? I will be blunt and to the point.
Many of the starving people in Africa are victims. They are not in that position because they never learned how to fish. That is a continent that has been the victim of colonialists from the west, who came in and stole all the fish. Raped their people and raped their land. You need not be an afrocentric revisionist to concede this fact, Mr. Kaine. It is for this reason that I think that our responsibility regarding the plight of the africans transcends your “three rule” theory.
I really enjoyed reading your comments. :)
LikeLike
August 28, 2011 at 12:04 am
The Arbourist
Its a good week for Libertarian smackdown.
LikeLike
August 28, 2011 at 10:49 am
Chris Carlin
I disagree with your approach of picking and choosing between values, the approach of trying to negotiate a ratio of outcomes. This is contrary to what a lot of the libertarian philosophers wrote about back in the day, and seems to itself be a hijacking of the term.
Libertarianism, in my research, is about a more scientific method of finding the fundamental principles that underscore values, justice, and all that, and then going where the principles lead. Picking and choosing among outcomes or trying to find balances make huge messes of things, creating these precarious and unnecessarily complex systems that try to find consistency between inconsistent viewpoints.
Libertarianism explained without strong focus on first principles is not libertarianism.
So I take strong exception to the ideas you lay out here. You complain about people hijacking the term, but I’d say you’re doing the same.
LikeLike
August 28, 2011 at 11:45 am
The Arbourist
Libertarianism explained without strong focus on first principles is not libertarianism.
Welcome, thanks for taking the time to participate.
I would agree wholeheartedly. The problem is that ‘libertarianism’ has become a rough caricature of the original definition.
Consider what Chomsky has to say on the current state of libertarian affairs in the US.
If you have insight into first principles and what libertarianism is supposed to be, do share. :)
LikeLike
August 28, 2011 at 4:09 pm
TheUnrepublican
Vern R. Kaine:
I knew immediately that the “rules” you outlined sounded familiar, but I just could not place it, yet.
It is actually VERY similar to some of the principles outlined in Hitler’s “Mein Kampf”.
http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/
I am dead serious.
LikeLike
August 28, 2011 at 6:36 pm
The Arbourist
I’ve only alluded in jest to your corportist tendencies Vern, but apparently you’re just like Hitler.
*awesome*
LikeLike
August 28, 2011 at 6:50 pm
The Arbourist
Oh hey, more on the good things taxes do for us.
LikeLike
August 28, 2011 at 6:58 pm
The Arbourist
I think it is time to reevaluate the paradigm that we’re (mostly you) are building your assumptions on. This is one post from Pharyngula on taxation and it does a fine job of analyzing what when wrong and what is going wrong with the American economy. I think it challenges much of what you believe so it will be difficult reading, but I hope you persist. :)
“For three decades we have conducted a massive economic experiment, testing a theory known as supply side economics. The theory goes like this: Lower tax rates will encourage more investment, which in turn will mean more jobs and greater prosperity, so much so that tax revenues will go up, despite lower rates. Milton Friedman promoted this strategy. Ronald Reagan embraced Friedman’s ideas and made them into policy.
For the past decade, we have doubled down on this theory of supply-side economics with the tax cuts sponsored by George W. Bush in 2001 and 2003, which Obama agreed to continue for two years.
You would think that whether this grand experiment worked would have been settled after three decades. You would think the economists would look at their demand curves and the data on incomes and taxes and pronounce a verdict. But economics isn’t like that. It’s not like physics with its laws or arithmetic with its absolute values.
Tax policy is something the Constitution leaves to politics. And in politics, the facts often matter less then who has the biggest bullhorn. The folks who once ran campaigns featuring doctors extolling the health benefits of smoking are now busy marketing the dogma that tax cuts mean broad prosperity, no matter what the facts show.
Gretchen Carlson of Fox News claimed “47 percent of Americans don’t pay any taxes.” John McCain and Sarah Palin both said similar things during the 2008 campaign about the bottom half of Americans. Ari Fleischer, the former Bush White House spokesman, once said, “50 percent of the country gets benefits without paying for them.”
Actually, they pay lots of taxes, just not lots of federal income taxes.
Data from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy show that in 2008 the average income for the bottom third of taxpayers was $15,300. This year the first $9,350 of income is exempt from taxes for singles and $18,700 for married couples. That means millions of the poor do not make enough to owe income taxes. But they still pay plenty of other taxes, including federal payroll taxes. Between gas taxes, sales taxes, utility taxes and other taxes, no one lives tax free in America.
When it comes to state and local taxes, the poor bear a heavier burden than the rich in every state except Vermont, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy calculated from official data. In Alabama, for example, the burden on the poor is more than twice that of the top 1%. The one-fifth of Alabama families making less than $13,000 pay almost 11% of their income in state and local taxes, compared with less than 4% for those who make $229,000 or more.
Rand Paul, the Teabagger Senator from Kentucky, said recently that “the wealthy do pay most of the taxes in this country.” The Internet is awash with statements that the top 1% pay more than 40%.
It’s true that the top 1% of wage earners paid 38% of federal income taxes in 2008 (the most recent year for which data are available). But people forget that income tax is less than half of federal taxes and only one-fifth of taxes at all levels of government. Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance taxes (known as payroll taxes) are paid mostly by the bottom 90% of wage earners. That’s because once you reach $106,800 of income, you pay no more for Social Security, though the much smaller Medicare tax applies to all wages. Warren Buffett pays the exact same amount of Social Security taxes as someone who earns $106,800.
The IRS issues an annual report on the 400 highest income tax payers. In 1961, there were 398 taxpayers who made $1 million or more, so I compared their income tax burdens from that year to 2008. Despite skyrocketing incomes, the federal tax burden on the richest 400 has been slashed, thanks to a variety of loopholes, allowable deductions and other tools. The actual share of their income paid in taxes, according to the IRS, is 16.6%. Adding payroll taxes barely nudges that number. Compare that to the vast majority of Americans, whose share of their income going to federal taxes increased from 13.1% in 1961 to 22.5% in 2008.
By the way, during seven of the eight Bush years, the IRS report on the top 400 taxpayers was labeled a state secret, a policy which the Obama administration overturned almost immediately after his inauguration.
The Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute and similar conservative marketing organizations tell us relentlessly that lower tax rates will make us all better off. “When tax rates are reduced, the economy’s growth rate improves and living standards increase,” according to Daniel Mitchell, a Cato economist. He says that supply-side economics is “the simple notion that lower tax rates will boost work, saving, investment and entrepreneurship.”
When Reagan was elected president, the top marginal tax rate (that’s the rate at which one’s tax liability increases as one’s income increases) for income was 70%. He cut it to 50% and then 28% in 1987. It was raised by George H.W. Bush and Clinton and then cut by George W. Bush. The top rate is now 35%.
Since 1980, when Reagan won election promising prosperity through tax cuts, the average income of the bottom 90% of Americans has increased a meager $303, or 1%. Put another way, for each dollar people in the vast majority made in 1980, in 2008 their income was up to $1.01.
Those at the top did better. The top 1%’s average income more than doubled to $1.1 million. The really rich, the top 10th of 1%, each enjoyed almost $4 in 2008 for each dollar in 1980. The top 300,000 Americans now enjoy almost as much income as the bottom 150 million.
In 2009, President Obama pushed a tax cut for the working class. He persuaded Congress to enact the Making Work Pay Tax Credit. Over the two years 2009 and 2010, it saved single workers up to $800 and married heterosexual couples up to $1,600, even if only one spouse worked. The top 5% or so of taxpayers were denied this tax break.
The Obama administration called it “the biggest middle-class tax cut” ever. Yet in December 2010 the Republicans, poised to regain control of the House of Representatives, killed Obama’s Making Work Pay Credit while extending the Bush tax cuts for two more years–a policy Obama agreed to. By doing so, Congressional Republicans increased taxes on a third of Americans, virtually all of them the working poor, this year. As a result, of the 155 million households in the tax system, 51 million will pay an average of $129 more this year. That is $6.6 billion in higher taxes for the working poor, the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center estimated.
In addition, the Republicans changed the rate of workers’ FICA contributions, which finances half of Social Security. The result: If you are single and make less than $20,000, or married and less than $40,000, you lose under this plan. But the top 5%, people who make more than $106,800, will save $2,136 ($4,272 for two-career couples).
Here is a question to ask yourself: We started down this road with Reagan in 1980 and upped the ante in this century with George W. Bush. How long does it take to conclude that a policy has failed to fulfill its promises?
Note: All data are from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.”
LikeLike
August 28, 2011 at 8:51 pm
Bleatmop
Quick question, what is a Prosperity Gospel?? They mention it in that Pharyngula website you liked to Arb, though I’ve never heard of this before. Can anyone enlighten me?
LikeLike
August 29, 2011 at 10:04 am
The Arbourist
The Prosperity Gospel has its roots in the American Evangelical movement of the 1950’s. It was a precursor to the power of positive thinking shitecan we have going today. Essentially, if you can dream/visualize it, you can have it. If you don’t get want you want, then obviously you are not trying hard enough. The Prosperity Gospel, like Positive Thinking, it is insidious as it encourages self flagellation/degradation on the basis of wishful thinking.
LikeLike
August 29, 2011 at 11:51 am
TheUnrepublican
You are correct, sir. I am not unfamiliar with duplicitous cancer that permeates modern day christianity. I sit and watch these preacher on television swindle the elderly, the gullible, and whoever else will listen to their prosperity gospel. “You can’t out give God”, they say.
Why what they are doing is allowed under the protection of the first amendment is truly beyond me. They are hurting people.
LikeLike
August 29, 2011 at 2:49 pm
Bleatmop
Holy fuck that’s stupid. I mean, like really really dumb. Though I suppose the followers of a religion that tells them that they are all sinners and that they must repent and atone for their sin, especially original sin, would probably eat this stuff up. Not only are you born a sinner but you deserve to be poor because you’re not holy enough. Or am I misunderstanding this?
LikeLike
August 29, 2011 at 5:23 pm
The Arbourist
Quoted For Truth :)
LikeLike
August 31, 2011 at 4:59 pm
Vern R. Kaine
Sorry for the late response(s) – was busy and out of the blogosphere for a while.
@Arb: “Grossly mismanaged or systematically distorted to benefit a certain class of society?”
Why does it have to be one or the other? My belief is that it is both.
“I get the government waste angle, but at the same time government does certain things better and more efficiently than the private sector ever could. Consider fire, police, and garbage collection.
Interesting. Based on what criteria? I’d agree with some of your list as far as “better” goes, i.e. when it comes to protecting citizens. I would say yes and also say that it is a wanted and needed function of government which Libertarians even agree to.
“More efficiently” however? No way. Look at the waste they just found in military spending. Fire and police forces are not without their shares of waste, too. Criminality out of the equation, there is no way the public sector can be more efficient than the private sector due simply to the fact that the profit motive – a primary driver of efficiency – is removed (and rightly so in the cases of fire, police, military). Isn’t part of your argument that private sector workers do more and get paid less? More for the same, or even less would be “efficiency”, wouldn’t it? At least in the short term…
The waste found in governments is largely a result of waste due to normal operations, waste that most small businesses and even some bigger ones couldn’t survive (without a government bailout. ;)) If you’ve got data suggesting otherwise, I’d love to see it.
“Also, consider the case of the US military, has contracting out been a good thing, or a bad thing on the whole? Has private contracting made it safer for the people in the army, or just more profitable for the business class?
I saw the stories of the Haliburton crew in Iraq and Afghanistan and it was sickening (re: food service, laundry, etc.) Private contractors such as Blackwater is another thing. Here again, however, I put to you that we’re looking at what should be considered criminal behaviors. Haliburton was stealing from government. Let’s also acknowledge, however, that the biggest reason why they were able to do is because the government was so big and inefficient it had a left hand that didn’t know what the right was doing over there.
On the other hand, the servicepeople I know would much rather have a private doctor or dentist handle their health needs than a military one. Also, private engineers and scientists have shown to do a much better and faster job of coming up with new, better, and more efficient ways of keeping soldiers safe, especially in an environment where the more time goes by, the more lives are lost. What’s a big motivator there? Profit – something new to sell the government that ALSO saves lives. In this case, private contractors are “better” and do in fact save more lives. It’s a highly subjective word but if you’re speaking in generalities I’d say in regards to protection – yes to government doing it “better”, and in regards to any other service – no – so long as that service is introduced to a relatively free market, and by “free” I mean where there is true freedom of choice.
LikeLike
August 31, 2011 at 5:20 pm
Vern R. Kaine
@Chris: Well put.
@Arb re: “The problem is that ‘libertarianism’ has become a rough caricature of the original definition”, I would agree as well. It’s now for some reason coming to mean hats and wigs that at one time I suppose looked cool, but in today’s fashion sense look downright goofy. haha
LikeLike
August 31, 2011 at 5:31 pm
Vern R. Kaine
Haha! That’s a first. I’m not even vegetarian! Hitler was a Nazi shithead – any similarities whatsoever are as superficial as the “evil guys and moustaches” argument.
Also, I realized before after I hit “post” that I had four there, not three. ;)
My point there was just to say that I have a slightly different view on charity in that I think it’s more helping people feed themselves, not be fed by others well into their adulthood.
Do I contribute to children’s charities? Absolutely, and I’m all for them in spirit and purpose. I do contribute to some charities that way, but to the discussion at hand I would much rather contribute larger funds to something like the Gates’ Foundation than more taxes to supposedly try and achieve a similar outcome.
LikeLike
August 31, 2011 at 5:49 pm
Vern R. Kaine
Nice list. :) Still argues from a distance, though, and I think neglects the finer and more important points.
Take the US postal service, for example. Sure, our taxes go to subsidizing things so our mail costs $0.44 instead of $18.50. Great – at least for now. But from my perspective I ask two questions:
1) Could that cost be $0.22 a letter, or could we still do $0.44 and KEEP our Saturday service if things were run more efficiently in terms of infrastructure and talent? Could we get even better service?
2) Is the current model (i.e. operational infrastructure and level of service) sustainable over the long term?
While always talking about sustainability in the physical environment, I never see the left really questioning sustainability in the financial environment. I get the sense that they never want to talk about or even really acknowledge any waste whatsoever, perhaps for fear that ANY cutting means “bad”, just like the far right never wants to talk about raising taxes for fear that any increase means the same.
It also seems to me that America’s core constituents of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents wants some sort of solution that involves spending AND revenues. It’s like we’re all caught up in this discourse arguing the extremes but ignoring solutions that are likely under our noses in the middle?
LikeLike
August 31, 2011 at 6:59 pm
Vern R. Kaine
@Arb (to me): “I think it is time to reevaluate the paradigm that we’re (mostly you) are building your assumptions on.
? Once again I think you categorize me incorrectly, Arb. Where do i say I’m all for “supply side” economics? Where do I say I’m for how the income disparity or the financial collapse has come about, speaking in support of big business?
On your other comments:
“(Regarding ‘taking land away from the indians) So then, arbitrarily, we’ll decide when the land ownership comes into being a “right”.”
Again you dodge here. Answer the question (please): If you’re such a strong believer in this, what is your specific reason for not handing your land and house back over to them? I submit that you truly don’t believe what you say on this topic.
You also said:
“…knowing or not knowing rich people personally is not a reasonable basis to judge whether a critique is valid.”
It is when your critique is in regards to their morality (compassion and intent) which is part of the discussion here. It means you’re being selective because you’re referring to only certain parts of a picture that fit your argument and are outright ignoring the parts which don’t, and therefore have an incomplete picture of what motivates this group of people.
I go back to the comment about taking Indian land away – because you aren’t handing over the title to your house, do I assume that all Albertans hate Indians, or are racist, or are cheap, selfish, etc? That since nothing has happened to hand all this land over, it must be concluded that the majority of Albertans go along with it and are guilty by association? That would seem to be a valid macro view using the same standards you seem to apply the other way.
“(you believe my view is that) Ah, if only things were privatized, only then could we realize true efficiency.” You generalize again. I have never said that. I HAVE said that the only way to achieve TRUE efficiency is privately where there is SOME profit motive, but I’ve also said just as often that it has to be balanced between the short and long-term, which means that human and hygiene factors must be considered, and as Deming has said, “Quality always costs less in the long run.”
Here’s the thing, though: respectfully, you seem incapable of making that distinction between someone who has employees and someone who wants slaves. It’s like if you have employees, you must be all for slavery unless you pay ridiculous, unsustainable, union wages.
“Of course, we won’t talk about ‘externalities’ or profit motive, or any of the other other things that make private industry inefficient and dependent on the state for their continued operation.
I believe this is you trying to bring in those “externalities” and extremes and present them as the norm, and because you deliberately ignore going into the day-to-day business community to gain another perspective, you can comfortably then believe it doesn’t exist.
And btw, any business that “depends on the state for their continued operation” isn’t a true business, isn’t libertarian, and isn’t even capitalist, so I have no clue what you’re actually trying to argue here! :) Are you referring to “Corporate Welfare”? That’s for socialists in capitalists’ clothing. Are you talking about government subsidies, such as what supports the post office? Same deal there, too. Funny how the companies you hate are the ones that operate more in line with leftist views.
“Furthermore, if we are going to be class conscious, critique from outside of one’s class is usually closer to reality that a examination of ones own condition because, naturally, bias does come into play.”
Only if that critique is based on actual facts, and statistics aren’t facts, and neither are studies into intangibles such as what it is that actually motivates people to act in a certain way. The majority surveyed before Copernicus probably though the earth was flat, too.
I’ll offer another example. Look at the drug studies that, in theory, and based on research, appear to say that the drug will be safe but once it gets out into the general population proves to actually be harmful either right away, or down the road. Obviously the scope wasn’t wide enough to include enough reality into the picture. Again, respectfully, i believe there are many things that you are bang-on about but when it comes to matters of business and capitalism, I believe you simply lack an effective scope of reference to accurately gauge what is really going on regarding business matters much as I have very little clue as to what to teach a kid in school.
Is your perspective on the middle class, or education to be excluded because you are of the middle class (I’m only guessing based on your occupation) and also a teacher? You mentioned before on my blog that male privilege in the classroom is “alive and well”, yet I argued with data that there is much research out there to prove the contrary. Based on that alone, I don’t automatically dismiss that you’re wrong. …Do you? ;)
LikeLike
September 1, 2011 at 8:38 pm
The Arbourist
“(Regarding ‘taking land away from the indians) So then, arbitrarily, we’ll decide when the land ownership comes into being a “right”.”
Again you dodge here. Answer the question (please): If you’re such a strong believer in this, what is your specific reason for not handing your land and house back over to them? I submit that you truly don’t believe what you say on this topic.
Actually it was Bleatmop that raised the Indian Land Question. I elaborated on it because we have, rather arbitrarily, decided that Libertarian principles should begin now. The state taking away private property from the people who ‘own’ it is an anathema to libertarian thought and base principles.
As far as giving back my little plot of land, I would not as it is still regulated by the state with expectations of taxes and upkeep, certainly nothing resembling its pristine condition when it was originally appropriated. Most likely it would be taken back by the state and resold into the existing system. No gain for anyone involved.
respectfully, you seem incapable of making that distinction between someone who has employees and someone who wants slaves. It’s like if you have employees, you must be all for slavery unless you pay ridiculous, unsustainable, union wages.
And it would seem by your reckoning that all union wages are unsustainable then? Unions exist to ensure that employees are not treated like slaves and can tone down the exploitative nature of the capitalist system.
I believe you simply lack an effective scope of reference to accurately gauge what is really going on regarding business matters much as I have very little clue as to what to teach a kid in school.
Well isn’t that a haughty little bit of elitism? :) Impressive Vern, it is usually the hobby horse I get to ride when dealing with people who argue with me. Now here is the thing, just which parts of business are so ensconced in mystery and so labyrinthine that I as a layperson has no hope of understanding what is going on? I’ve read much on capitalism and how it works (and how it does not work) and feel at least modestly capable of making reasonable arguments about it.
Admittedly I am not a small business owner and therefore am not in the belly of the beast, but that does not make me unqualified to comment on the crap that is ruining our countries. So again, we can’t use statistics, or theory….we have to go with anecdata and personal experience and that trumps all? Personal experience and anecdata can certainly be useful, but should not be the main source of determining what is a good argument for “x”.
You mentioned before on my blog that male privilege in the classroom is “alive and well”, yet I argued with data that there is much research out there to prove the contrary.
In my particular situation I deal with a great deal of misogyny and privilege. Can I reasonably extrapolate *only* my experience into a generalization, of course not. When I was commenting on your blog, I was coming from a societal point of view, which by the way is still rife with patriarchal norms and privilege, and merely pointing out that it is unsurprising to find male privilege in the classroom as were still swimming in it here out in society.
LikeLike
September 2, 2011 at 2:33 pm
Bleatmop
Vern: “(Regarding ‘taking land away from the indians) So then, arbitrarily, we’ll decide when the land ownership comes into being a “right”.”
Again you dodge here. Answer the question (please): If you’re such a strong believer in this, what is your specific reason for not handing your land and house back over to them? I submit that you truly don’t believe what you say on this topic.
———————
To respond to you, I don’t believe in the libertarian principle:
Where property, including land, has been taken from its rightful owners by the government or private action in violation of individual rights, we favor restitution to the rightful owners.
I was critiquing it. I believe property, especially land is a common good, not an individual right. I was critiquing the libertarian proposition because I’m that this talking point is about land expropriated by cities from farmers, amongst other things to be certain. The libertarians may believe that the land was wrongly taken from the farmers and thus should be returned to them, making the ex-farmers billionaires in the process. I’m quite certain the same libertarians haven’t taken their same logic to the ends and think that they should give all their land back no the natives of this land, as they were the original owners, going back millenniums.
The idea of absolute property rights is a selfish and self serving ideal that only leads to greater disparity between the richest and the poorest of any nation. That means it is ultimately self destructive, because the a very good indicator of the health of any nation is the level of disparity between the richest and the poorest. The greater the gap, the worse the health. Having money in the hands of consumers drives our economies, not in the hands of the top 0.5%. Sadly, out governments are increasingly taking these stupid positions of helping consolidate more money in the top 0.5% and less into the vast majority.
LikeLike
February 16, 2012 at 2:46 pm
JS
“IOW: if a privately owned hospital wants to deny you visitation rights because you’re gay, well, that’s tough shit: not only can’t the government tell them to stop on principle, you’re not allowed to legally make yourself your loved one’s “next of kin” to gain legal visitation rights on an individual level, because marriages aren’t the government’s business.
IOW, libertarians don’t want the government to fund PP, because poor women don’t deserve the same right to “conscientious consideration” than rich women do.”
After reading these two gems, I stopped. As you point out: marriage isn’t the gov’t’s business. And neither is what you allow up your anus. So unless you are a man who arrived at the hospital with some guy’s schlong in your mouth, how exactly would the hospital know that you are gay? And next of kin? You do know that you can delegate your power of attorney, right? And children are not married to their parents so how oh how do we do it all without the gov’t keeping track of what we are doing in our bedrooms???
And PP?? You know that the gov’t used to only support PP enough to piss off Republicans, right? (Actually Nixon was the one who started it.) It may as well be a private charity and avoid the political controversy. FYI gov’t as a source of revenue for PP is now approx 46% when just one year ago it was 33% ($487.4M vs. $363.2M). And during recent incidents where funding was pulled or threatened donations flooded the organization leaving me scratching my head wondering why these people don’t continue those donations rather than force those opposed for religious or economic reasons via taxes and cloud our political discourse that should be focused on other matters.
The LP’s banner reads: Minimum Government, Maximum Freedom
Not: Zero Gov’t, Unlimited Freedom
There is a place for gov’t otherwise we wouldn’t have a Constitution, but that does not mean that the gov’t should be there to dictate that every choice is what is considered ‘right’ (given the knowledge of today and not tomorrow). I cannot believe that people in this day and age do not see that gov’t is TOO big (yet still necessary). Do I wish that the gov’t was unneeded? Yes. Do I think that it is? Certainly not. On the other hand, do I want the gov’t to make every decision for me and everyone else to make my life easier? (It would by the way) HELL no! I want my freedom and freedom for others.
Oh and as for the Indians I am not sure where you guys were going with that, but it was the US gov’t that took their land. No group of settlers could have amassed that sort of force on their own and would have been defeated by the Natives. It would have been interesting if we never had a gov’t that big *and aggressive* back in the day. Hell I remember stories of how Mormons were driven out of eastern states by state level gov’ts. Hmm…that makes it seem that minorities would be better off without such gov’t structure. Oh and the same with slavery and the internment of Nisei in WWII-era US. Obvious gov’t created horrors. No, sorry I want no part of that.
LikeLike
February 16, 2012 at 3:18 pm
JS
People like him can rant all they want. The fact of the matter is that the “Libertarian” party with a capital L is what they call themselves. He himself identifies as a libertarian socialist so why does he not insist on just calling himself a libertarian? Because he knows that there are many different branches of a philosophy that focuses on various forms of liberalism/freedom. Some want protection from gov’t and others don’t give a crap if they get killed by their neighbor. Others want independance from others and a different group want others to keep them free from externalities. He is too arrogant to see that from the point of view of different people the word has over time meant different things to different people.
And no originally it wasn’t anarcho-socialism or whatever the hell backwards idea he has. He sounds like if communism was what libertarianism first meant then he would adhere to that. Give it a rest Noam. Political thought has evolved over time. He (and you that agree with him) act like you were born during the Age of Enlightenment and therefore think the rest of us are crazy. Get over yourselves…you were born in the 20th century. Act like it and drop the semantics.
At any rate I do applaud Noam for thinking out of the (two-party) box nonetheless.
LikeLike
February 16, 2012 at 8:57 pm
VR Kaine
Having to think back a ways, but on the native land thing I believe at the time I was pointing out what I believed to be the hypocrisy of “Fair Share liberals”. Specifically with that example, that they’ll talk about how “we” should give Indians their “fair share” of land, but they really mean other people should give it and not them, because none of these liberals have or would ever offer up their own. They’ll also say “we should pay reparations” but yet they’ll never raise their taxes or hand over their own paychecks to do it. They prefer the more “give them a fish” approach with the learned-helpless whereas I’m more libertarian in my thinking that they already know how to “fish”; and anybody who has the capability of meeting their own needs legally and safely should be left largely to their own devices in order to meet them.
LikeLike