TheAgitator.com
37 Responses to “Morning Links”
Leave a Reply
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial NoDerivs 2.5 License.
Site Features
- Home
- About Radley Balko
- Publications
- Speaking Info
- Multimedia
- Resume
- Picasa Photos
- Recommendations
- RSS Feed
- Buy Agitator Gear
-
-
$12/month Recurring Donation
$6/month Recurring Donation
- My Amazon wishlist
-
Site Credits
There are some pretty brilliant reviews on that amazon page.
^
my favorite: “Initially I had a hard time getting into Wagner’s ring, no matter how much I pushed myself, I just couldn’t slip into it. However, I found that slowly, after repeated attempts, Wagner’s ring loosened up and permitted me the access I’d been seeking.
Now, whenever I get lonely on cold winter nights I just dip into Wagner’s ring. I don’t think I’ve reached the bottom of it yet, but I’m getting closer every day, and I now realize that Wagner’s ring piece is one of the best things I’ve ever come across. “
I like how the photos of the food are shown in extreme closeup to make them as unappetizing as possible.
How can one 20oz steak at one place be more unhealthy than a 20oz steak at another? How is a 20oz T-Bone be more unhealthy than 20oz of Porterhouse or ribeye goodness?
I think they just randomly picked things, probably from companies that refuse to advertise in their Socialist-pseudoscience-soft-core-gay-porn rag.
That dog is actually very smart, what you see here is a picture taken in the middle of the loveable mutt’s charade performance of the following: “nice gun discipline, you ******* idiot.”
Past contenders for Church Cock of the Year: Jerry Falwell, Ted Haggard, Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart…
I like the way the second poster replies to the Ph.D. He points out that when you add a “value added” tax, it is those on the bottom who get the short end of it. Fair isn’t always fair for those on the bottom.
For example, if Bush had decided to make his economic stimulus package a % of your taxes paid in 2007, even if it’s the same percentage (let’s assume 5%), the rich would get most of the money and the republicans would call it fair because everyone is getting the same percentage back.
Nando, I’m not a repuclican but that actually does sound fair to me.
Nando, how is that unfair? It’s certainly true that a percentage reduction benefits the rich more than the poor, but that’s because they pay more.
The fact that that’s widely (and wrongly) considered unfair is what that whole article is about.
It might be worth rereading it.
Look – the point of a graduated income tax is so that poor people don’t pay the say % (or even pay at all). Why? B/c when you have two people, one with 1 million dollars and the other with 10,000, the belief is that the poor person must pay for necessities (food, housing, etc) and while the other may also buy necessities, that person has more left at the end.
Where Phd boy errs is in the example. Our tax is not a consumption tax. So “buying” something is not comparable.
Here is another example of our tax system. Think the game of monopoly.
person 1 – earns income of 35,000
person 2 – earns 1,500,000 but has a net worth of several million in assets (think Paris Hilton)
through the myriad of deductions, exemptions and fictional business losses, Paris pays 400,000 in taxes. She still has over 1.1 million left.
Person one may pay little or no fed tax directly ( let’s say 4,000) Even without all of the other taxes that he (and Paris) may pay, at the end of the game he has 31,000.
Now, If you base the winner as the one that paid less in overall dollars – then yes person 1 is the winner.
If you base the winner on who still has the most money – Paris wins.
At the end of the game, I would rather have the 1million or so to care for my family.
That essay on taxes was not written by who it is purportedly written by: http://www.snopes.com/business/taxes/howtaxes.asp
I’m not saying the analogy is inapt, but it is one of those things that people email each other that has no clear author.
Sure I would rather have a million dollars too and the clear winner in your scenario is Paris Hilton. However is having a winner a bad thing? Would you prefer Paris were forced to give $750,000. to the the other party? Where is the motivation for either party to succeed in that scenario?
Life certainly isn’t fair to the person only making $35k but that isn’t nessasarily the government’s fault. A higher tax percentage for the wealthy isn’t fair to the wealthy and that is the government’s fault. I am not saying that all forms of graduated taxes are bad for society, but it isn’t “fair” to the person paying the higher percentage and the higher dollar value anyway you slice it. I don’t think the government can or should fix the fact that one person earns $35K while another earns $1.5M (assuming that the high earner isn’t somehow suppressing the low earner).
The barstool analogy still has some truth to it. For that matter so does the following rebuttal post.
Bernard and Mike,
Returning 5% of taxes paid to everyone is not fair (and would be a dumb way to design an economic stimulus package). Why? Allow me to explain:
Person A earns $50,000 a year and paid $10,000 in taxes;
Person B earns $1,000,000 a year and paid $300,000 in taxes.
Now, if they each get a 5% return, person A will receive $500 and person B will receive $15,000. Now, who needs the money more? I’d argue that person A would make a better use of the money than would person B (and person B will probably just stash it in his offshore account, or invest it in the stock market, which is only electronic money, not real money helping our economy).
If you are the kind who believes that “fair” means equal to everyone when it comes to taxes, then you must be in favor of the “flat tax” system, where everyone pays the same percentage of income. While it might sound “fair,” it really puts the burden of future government revenue on the middle class.
You see, under the current progressive system, the rich pay a larger share of their income. To make up the difference in revenue, the government must either: A) shift a significant portion of the tax burden to the middle class; or, B) borrow money to make up the difference. Since we don’t want the national debt growing more than it is, middle class families will have to foot the bill. Now, is that fair to most of America?
Taxes are complex because of years of adding loopholes and exemptions (mostly for the benefit of the rich). The tax code is not complex because it’s progressive. If you eliminated exemptions and loopholes, you could probably fit the tax code on one 8.5×11 page.
Nando,
I think you may be confusing ‘need’ with ‘fair’. They are two unrelated concepts. Certainly I might agree person ‘A’ may need the money more than person ‘B’. However giving money from person ‘B’ to person ‘A’ is not ‘fair’ under any circumstances. It may be good for society to do so, and I didn’t say I disagree with a progressive tax system, however that does not make it a fair system. The percentage of unfairness is something that would make for a useful discussion. If taking 50% from the very wealthy is a good thing why not 60%? Where do you draw the line?
The merits of a stimulus package based on giving money are what should be debated. Your’e claiming that giving a higher percentage to lower income people will do more to benefit the economy than an equal percentage to all. Where are the facts to support this? I know I personally have worked at a startup company so people putting money into the stock market has paid my salary. Calling for fairness from either side is just rhetoric.
This is the proper debate question for this stimulus question. Crying ‘No Fair’ isn’t helpful for either side.
Oh and in my mind true ‘fairness’ isn’t a flat tax rate. It would be a bill for services rendered. I am paying taxes for police/school/garbage/military etc services. This would be a regressive tax and certainly bad for society but would be ‘fair’.
On the issue of fairness
Simply put, The billionaire has more to lose if society falls. the rich pay more b/c they benefit more. Our laws, from the creation of the corporation to our current tax code favor the entrenchemnt of established wealth.
The rich also benefit from order. If everyone is happy, then no pitchforks at the gate, so to speak. Don’t ignore the indirect benefits conferred to the wealthy as a result of maintaing societal order.
Again, this is not an indictment of the wealthy, I jsut don’t cry for the billionaire that “pays more” in taxes.
After the unhealthy foods bit, there’s a link to Hollywood’s 30 Dumbest People….and you’ll watch that and nod your head, “Yeah, yeah….”
Then, after that, there’s a list of Hollywood’s so-called smartest people — and you’ll swear that at least half the mugs on it are just as moronic and Mongoloid as any on the dumb list.
Gee, who would have guessed that greasy fried restaurant food would have a lot of fat, salt and calories?
Mike,
I believe it got into the economic stimulus by tangent. I never intended to debate that issue (although I do believe that putting $600 in the hands of the populous will just lead to higher debt. For example, some might think, “Cool, I get $600 so I’ll put this $1200 flat screen on my credit card and pay it off later!”).
What I do believe is fair is to give more back to those who need it. That, to me, is fair. To others, giving the same percentage back sounds fair, until you realize that you end up hurting the “little” guy, and, again, I call that unfair. I guess we all have an application for the same word.
As for where to draw the line, the line will always be arbitrarily decided by someone (or some agency). And, I dare to bet my bottom dollar that it will be based on how much they think they can get away with (i.e. what your threshold of pain is). If they think you’ll accept 50% but complain about 55%, you will be charged at 50%.
Also, I believe Joe put it well when he said that those who have more to lose benefit the most from the services provided by the government and, as such, should pay the higher share.
I don’t think taxes on services rendered is practical. Maybe in a country of a dozen, but not several hundred million.
A flat tax is the most fair in the sense that it is supplying the govenment the collective need. Everyone uses the military in the same extent everyone uses American soil. Its there, everybody touches it somehow, and without it, the country would fail.
However-
The only way the government could get the money it wants without a revolt or armed revolution would be to :
1) Punish the rich and penalize the ambitious (current system)
2) Indirectly punish the rich (Consumption tax)
At least with the consumption tax, you are aware of it and it is very straight forward. Not like payroll taxes.
And if it takes loop holes for the rich to save a mill, let them. Simple laws eliminate loopholes.
“Everyone uses the military in the same extent everyone uses American soil.”
Really. You think that an inner city poor person and a multi-millionaire / billionaire have the same risks if the US falls. Really.
[...] Hat tip: Radley Balko. [...]
Joe-
Same level of risk, not same type of risk. The rich man would definitely lose what he had earned/acquired. The inner city poor man, while not losing much, would lose the opportunity to do better. If this were not the case, we would not have the majority of the world’s wealth AND largescale immigration issues .
I am actually kind of ill from all the richman-hate occurs. Why should I aspire to be successful and wealthy if I am a pariah among men? Oh wait, I would be hated by those who are :
1) jealous of my status for whatever reason (there may be many) or
2) disgusted at the appearance of waste and luxury.
Thats it. The first point is common among Man. The second is cursed of those with socialistic and social levelling ideals. Which one are you?
Bravo Mike, you win. You are right. Let’s all have one big pity party for the multi-millionaires and billionaires of the world. I don’t know how on earth they do it.
Seriously, read my posts. Did I say I hated the rich. No. Am I a socialist. No. Jealous – hardly. I am doing quite well. However, I don’t feel sorry for those who consistently win the game.
Regardless of the inequities of the tax system, the super rich still manage each year to stay super rich. How does that happen in a system which you contend is sooooo unfair?
My 1st post poses the question – who wins after the taxes are imposed. The winner is the one who has the most money when the game ends.
I do not resent Bill Gates or even Paris Hilton. But I have no sympathy for them either. I save my sympathy for those who need it.
Another example of the tax code is as follows:
My brother and I go out for lunch. My brother, a student, has limited means. I a working professional, have way more spare change. I pay for lunch every time, no questions. ever. Why because it is the right thing to do. He gets a lunch and I get to feel good b/c I helped him in a way I would have appreciated when I was a student. The graduated tax code on a micro scale.
I’ll read your posts as soon as you read mine, Joe.
Never, ever said we should celebrate the rich in my post. Nor should I argued sypathy for anyone. Nor did I imply either idea. But you certainly inferred it somehow. I commented on your comments on one line of my post, in which you state:
“Really. You think that an inner city poor person and a multi-millionaire / billionaire have the same risks if the US falls. Really.”
And commented on that. Not your tax code discussion, not about anything else. Your reactive post shows a hostility toward rich folk. Itis ingrained. And I openly challenged it and publicly wondered why.
Your example of paying for your and your brother’s lunch is an interesting one, though. You said it is the right thing to do. Why? What makes it right? That would make your tax code a question of morals, I believe. You know your brother has limited means, so you happily supply him his portion. Its a non issue.
But..Who says my moral character is like that.
One of my brothers has been in and out of jail for years. I have ensured that he is taken care of when we meet. I have even posted bond for him on numerous occasions. However, he never quits doing what he does (and no, none of it is drug related. He is just a con). I finally stopped funding him. Did our relationship change? Am I doing the “right” thing? Shouldn’t I keep supporting him even though he does not take steps to rectifiy his own situation?
With your example, I should. No matter how many lunches you have, there is nothing to persuade your brother to stop being a student in the example. Yes, he may become better off later, but by providing the free lunch now just does not provide incentive for him to become less dependent.
It all comes back to means. Just because someone has more money than he needs to survive does not indicate he should pay more governmental costs. Where did that come from? It is social engineering anyway you slice it. And why should it stop there, then. Why stop with taxes? Why not consumable goods as well? If you are rich, you should pay $10 a gallon of gas, while those poor folks should get it free, etc. Its called subsidising. And its wrong.
“It all comes back to means. Just because someone has more money than he needs to survive does not indicate he should pay more governmental costs. Where did that come from? It is social engineering anyway you slice it.”
From a Hobbesian perspective, that would be the price they pay for the security and freedom that comes with living in this country.
Thanks Alex: Exactly my point.
Without the LAW – we are all at war – everday would be chaos and no one person would win. The strong individual will be felled by an army of individually weaker individuals. That army will be felled by another. So what of it then. We set up a game – our society – where we all have the chance to succeed. Yet, to keep everyone “playing the game”, incentives are required. Why would the legion of poor stay in the game – incentives. If they are not enough – they will revolt.
One such incentive is a progressive tax – so that the poor feel that they rich man didn’t “get away.” My billionaire vs poor example is why law matters more to the billionaire. It is the difference between a ten story fall and a 3 ft fall.
As for our respective brother examples, your implies a problem with the “gov’t” progarm of continually supporting a ne’erdowell. Mine simply asks who is better situated to pay, and provides a reason for it (stability for the rich) That is the basis of my argument. We have to get the money from somebody – so who pays. How do we continue to convince evereyone to play the game? How each day to we convince those to not steal or kill us on our way to our luxury cars. Incentives. When those incentives are no longer worth it or the wealthy see to be “getting away” with it, many may “stop playng” and opt for a different, far more confiscatory game (i.e. revolt).
Your brother example relies on the fact that there is a jail cell where he can be placed to save us all. To avoid a personal attack, let’s assume we aren’t talking about your real brother. I could say that you and your family should pay for his incarceration. Why should I have to pay for what is arguably your parent’s mess? My parents raised two law abiding citizens. Why should my family pay for a problem another family visited upon the rest of us? That isn’t fair to my family.
Lastly, you said “I am actually kind of ill from all the richman-hate occurs. Why should I aspire to be successful and wealthy if I am a pariah among men? Oh wait, I would be hated by those who are :
1) jealous of my status for whatever reason (there may be many) or
2) disgusted at the appearance of waste and luxury.
We aspire to wealth beacause of the advatages it brings – security, stability and the ability to enjoy life. We can, despite a progressive tax, still do that here.
Again, if worry about being a “pariah among men” and you are a billionaire – you’re way off base.
“Simply put, The billionaire has more to lose if society falls.” – Joe
So we should force him to pay a higher tax rate for his own good? What if he would prefer to take his chances, pay the same tax rate as the middle class, and risk society failing. Whether or not you think that’s a rational decision should be irrelevant.
“Regardless of the inequities of the tax system, the super rich still manage each year to stay super rich. How does that happen in a system which you contend is sooooo unfair?” – Joe
You obviously think that our current tax system is at least some what fair. How close to socialism would the tax rate system have to get before you declared it to be unfair?
“Another example of the tax code is as follows:
My brother and I go out for lunch. My brother, a student, has limited means. I a working professional, have way more spare change. I pay for lunch every time, no questions. ever. Why because it is the right thing to do.” – Joe
And that is certainly a nice thing to do for your brother. Helping an old lady cross the street, when the opportunity presents itself, is also a nice thing to do. So is volunteering at a soup kitchen. This slippery slope is long and terrifying to consider.
“Now, if they each get a 5% return, person A will receive $500 and person B will receive $15,000. Now, who needs the money more?” – Nando
Do you really want Washington lawmakers asking themselves questions like this when considering a new piece of legislation?
Chris
My billionaire example is to illustrate the point that there is more afoot than a simple 1 person = $ value for gov’t benefits calculus. My point is that the billionaire receives benefits that are never discussed in the tax discussion. Though “fairness” “achievement” etc. usually are discussed as though they are the sole considerations.
When people speak of tax policy – fairness is always the issue. It is based upon our income. Is that the fairest approach? Why is work taxed higher than investment income? Why should a CEO making several hundred thousand a year be taxed at a higher rate than a trust fund baby?
Some argue a flat rate is the fairest. I could argue that it is fairer to add up the cost of all the services and divide it by the population #. Why not have everyone pay the same amount – money is money, right? Yet, why don’t we argue this? Is it because you believe it fairer for the wealthy to pay more money so long as it is the same percentage. That belief, too, is a step toward socialism, comrade.
My brother example, though true, is not a pat on the back for me. It illustrates the point of a progressive tax vs. flat vs. per capita tax.
Progressive – i pay
flat – we determine our incomes and take the appropriate % to pay the bill in full
per capita – split bill 50/50
I believe we all pay too much in taxes. Yes, that is right we all do. The poor (and rich, too) pay directly and indirectly. My point is that even under the current system – the rich still get to be rich and desrve no sympathy when they still win the game.
Joe,
Your lunch-with-brother analogy applies to income taxation only if your brother forces you to buy his lunch at gunpoint.
Right Scooby and the bar analogy applies if the bar patrons also do so.
More to the point, Scooby, what do you suppose would happen if organized govt ceased to exist? Do you still think you’d be able to keeo what you’ve earned. Read Hobbes – Do you think everyone would sit idly by and allow the wealthy to keep their rightful earnings? That same gun barrel also stops a revolt of the masses.
Joe,
“My point is that the billionaire receives benefits that are never discussed in the tax discussion.”
Could you elaborate on what these benefits are?
“Some argue a flat rate is the fairest. I could argue that it is fairer to add up the cost of all the services and divide it by the population #. Why not have everyone pay the same amount – money is money, right? Yet, why don’t we argue this? Is it because you believe it fairer for the wealthy to pay more money so long as it is the same percentage. That belief, too, is a step toward socialism, comrade.”
It’s not that I think a flat tax rate is necessarily the most fair system, just that it is more fair than a progressive tax rate.
“My brother example, though true, is not a pat on the back for me. It illustrates the point of a progressive tax vs. flat vs. per capita tax.”
I apologize if my response was vague. What you said in your example was that you pay for your brother’s meal not because it’s the fair approach, but because you felt that it is the “right” thing to do. You feel as though you have a moral obligation to do this for your brother, which is fine for you, but it should not be extended out to everyone by way of law.
“My point is that even under the current system – the rich still get to be rich and desrve no sympathy when they still win the game.”
I’ve never lost any sleep worrying about how rich guys are going to get by, so I understand how you feel. But to me, your point seems to effectively be “Bah, as long as they take home six figures they still seem rich to me. Screw em.” I’d still like to hear from you at what point you would consider the rate for the rich to be an injustice. Is 80% on income over $1,000,000 acceptable?
Chris -
If you read my 1st post – I refer to the idea that the wealthy remain at the top. Look, much of the debate here has focused on fair. I look at the practical effect. At some point you tax too much and discourage achievment. Tax the rich too little and you overburden the poor and middle class. They become irate. If this persists, the 1930s and 1940s that the US faced will recur with another New Deal and legion of new bureaucrats. FDR didn’t seize power – he was voted in. Why -b/c a lot of people had it really bad and a few seeemed to still have a lot of money. This fact needs to be considered in any tax discussion. If not, it sows the seeds for revolt. Once that occurs bye bye mansion and facy cars. The fallacy of the revolt is that the new govt will be better – With the exception of US 1776, it rarely is.
As to the current tax system – Those at the top rarely pay 33% to the fed. With all the deductions and loopholes they do pay less. I am not against them paying less than 33 percent. But I think when setting a policy, a graduated tax is fairer
Here’s a question for you – how should this income be taxed
1. CEO earns $1,500,000 a year
2. Trust Fund Earns $1,500,000 for one year.
who pays more in taxes? and Why
Lastly, My lunch example is another way to see how the tax works. Paying taxes isn’t a gift; but it does keep the family happy and maintain the status quo. The Bar example does not consider this aspect.
Joe,
If progressive taxation (at arbitrary rates) taken at gunpoint by Leviathan is the only way of maintaining civil society, then civil society might not be worth keeping.
Joe,
Scooby has it right, the ends do not justify the means.
This whole time, I’ve sorta been arguing for a flat rate vs a progressive rate, when I personally feel that both are immoral and unnecessary. I just don’t understand how an income tax apologist can think that the progressive rate is more fair than a flat rate.
“Here’s a question for you – how should this income be taxed
1. CEO earns $1,500,000 a year
2. Trust Fund Earns $1,500,000 for one year.
who pays more in taxes? and Why”
IMO zero and zero.
“Lastly, My lunch example is another way to see how the tax works. Paying taxes isn’t a gift; but it does keep the family happy and maintain the status quo. The Bar example does not consider this aspect.”
And this is the disconnect. I’m not looking for the federal government to attempt to artificially regulate the different classes of our society, and by means of armed robbery no less. And as Scooby said, if this means the end of our country as we know it, then so be it.
So why a % tax at all why not a flat $ amount? Why not a per capita tax? Everyone is equal, right? We all have the same risks, right? Why should the government ever consider whether someone’s earnings do not allow them to live and buy necessities. If you make 20,000 a year and your tax is 32,000 – too bad. You lose this year. We all won’t have to pay more when the poor rationally chose to not obey the law. Of course.
Newsflash – all taxes are at gunpoint and at arbitrary rates. The question is, “how do we pay for our government?”. If you want no taxes then you live in fantasyland – I suppose we could rely on gifts.
If we do the “bill for services rendered”, then what services do we all pay for?” I obey the crimes code – why should I pay for anyone to sit in jail? I’ll take my chances with a sidearm any day.
More to the point, I’d like an anwser to the following –
1.How do we tax?
2.Why not a per capita tax?
3. What services do we pay for?
4. Who pays for your brother’s jail sentence – Again why doesn’t your brother pay and if he can’t then why shouldn’t your parents pay? They raised him, right? Or in this case is it better for society to pay for it? When the collective is a better recourse than the individual – that leans to socialism.
Income tax apologist – priceless.
I agree with Joe! Sorry Chris and Scooby, you’re wrong on this one.