This is a very good commentary about this topic from The Economist. I would welcome more of these type of progressives. This is the kind of dialogue that needs to begin, so those of you who have blind faith in government and those of us who are suspicious of it can start thinking outside the box, instead of continuing the old tired bullshit debate of "lets tax the rich" vs "no redistribution of income". http://www.economist.com/node/21564556
So reducing inequality between the lower/middle class in the 1st world and the lower/middle class in the 2nd/3rd world is good. But reducing it between the upper class in the 1st world and... well... anyone, is bad. And I'm normally a pretty big fan of the Economist, but slipping in the "wealth-creators" descriptor for the super rich was flat out bush league.
but the right isn't really about smaller government either. once they get into power, righty politicians realize that smaller government would mean less power for them. that goes against their self interest. so no sane politician is going to support that - once in power. they only give lip-service to small government until they get into power. once in power and they control the purse strings, it all changes. they realize that money is good! money is power! they realize that money is the key to staying in power. the disagreement between Dems and Reps isn't bigger or smaller government, but rather how the government should spend its money - and this is a rather small disagreement, as it only really concerns discretionary spending - a relatively small portion of the US government budget. wealth redistribution is not a lefty concept. both parties engage in it - and usually the redistribution goes from the middle class to the "wealth creators." have you looked our tax code lately? don't tell me that isn't wealth redistribution.
While I like the Economist, the dychotomy they create isn't accurate; there's more to "taxing the rich" than just taxing them. Besides which, it seemed to work pretty well in the 50s and 60s, didn't it?
Perhaps when you say "taxing the rich" you have a broader definition, but I think when people like Obama or French PM Ayrault are talking about "taxing the rich" they are not talking broadly about those who have lots of wealth, but more specifically about raising the income tax rate on those who had a particular productive calendar year in financial terms. As far as the 50s and 60s, my thinking is that the relative concentration of wealth in the US was so great after WWII, that it was probably a much better time for the US economy to support high taxes and deliver generous benefits to its citizens than the present time is. But I think that level of US economic dominance and generosity was not sustainable over the long term, regardless of fiscal policy. I think the US was wise in taking steps to stop the rate of government growth before it reached the level that is now causing so many problems in Europe and other parts of the world. As much as I think the decline of the US was to some extent inevitable, I think it would be a lot worse today had they continued to expand government at the rate that we were seeing in the 50s and 60s.
Right, but what are they going to do with that money, that's the question. If the answer is "let's nationalize industry", obviously that's a bad thing. But if the answer is "create jobs programs", that might not be such a bad idea. Bear in mind, the wealthiest Americans are currently taxed less than they have been in the past 60 or so years. We haven't been raising taxes over the past 50 years, we've been consistently lowering them. In some cases, that makes a lot of sense - the 80% tax rates on the highest earners were ludicrous. But we're now waaaaay past those rates. When you say we're running out of money - isn't that partially due to wealthy people paying a lower percentage of taxes? The relative concentration of wealth is higher today than it was in the 50s and 60s, so I don't think that argument makes any sense. Is that high of a level of government causing problems in Europe? It doesn't seem to be causing problems for Sweden or Germany, right? I appreciate you have a natural skepticism of government due to your experiences in Argentina, as do I due to my own personal experiences. But there's a huge difference between what Cristina is doing and what Obama is proposing. A vast difference, in fact.
Anyone who thinks growth of government has been slowed at any point in the past 80 years is living in a fantasy land. I do not understand how people convince themselves of this stuff.
I don't see how government has gotten that much bigger, other than as a way to keep up with growing population and changing/growing industries. I'm never quite sure what smaller government people actually mean to tell you the truth. Based on answers I have heard to that question, I don't think they do either. Well, other than defense, that sure has gotten bigger - but "small gov't" folks never want to shrink that part, so that must not mean anything.
Did you get my point? Are you saying that you think the federal government is bigger now than it would have been if we had continued with the economic policies of presidents Johnson and Nixon? If so, then are you even familiar with the economic policies of presidents Johnson and Nixon? Yes. obviously the fact that I believe socialists err in one direction doesn't mean that I don't see that libertarians can err in the opposite direction. I think given the current deficit we'll have to see higher taxes at some point, and that's one area where I think the article I linked to can be helpful in thinking beyond the present political argument of simply arguing about sticking it to those who had a productive calendar year or not. As far as your other point, I agree that government has a role in creating jobs, provided they are jobs that are actually needed and not jobs created for no other reason than a need to create jobs. I do think that recessionary and sluggish growth times are the best times to build and fix needed infrastructure. But having said that, it can get out of hand. The joke in Argentina was that the politician would go to a town and say "We are going to build a bridge and provide thousands of jobs". Somebody would say "but sir, we don't even have a river". To which he would retort, "...and we are also going to build a river, and that will provide even more jobs!". My point is, there is a role for government, and I'm all for government taxing or borrowing if necessary to create the kind of jobs that are going to contribute to the nation's wealth. Where they are needed, public transportation and adequate roads are good examples, and I think there's no better time to get people building them than during a recession when there's scarcity of employment. But I believe it's not the role of government to create jobs just for the sake of creating jobs. Maybe I wasn't clear, but I meant the relative concentration of wealth in the US compared to other countries, not within the US. Obviously now the US is not as rich as it used to be back then compared to other countries in relative terms. I mean in France, Italy, Spain as well as other nations that have tried the socialist model. I think Germany is starting to see some of the same problems as well, and I predict that they'll find themselves in economic terms in deeper shit than the US and much sooner. I think Sweden (and the rest of Scandinavia) is an anomaly. We are talking about small wealthy nations, homogenous, with a certain culture and idiosyncrasy, who have somehow made a difficult system work and have been mostly immune to the problems of government corruption and inefficiency that seems to affect most governments as well as other large non-profit organizations with power. I find it hard to imagine that what they are doing in Scandinavia can be replicated in most other places. I hear some of my Argentine friends say "we need socialism like Scandinavia" and I admire their hope but I don't think it would ever work there, and I doubt very much that it could work in the US. Of course, that goes without saying. While he's not my ideal candidate, I respect Obama and I'm considering voting for him. I also think Romney makes some valid points, but it doesn't mean I'm sold on him either. My responses on this thread were not specifically directed at Obama or Romney, but rather at the point of view of some posters that was expressed here. There is obviously a difference between what Obama proposes and what an ideologist -albeigh an intelligent one- like ratdog or a dogmatic liberal like superdave are arguing in this thread. I am aware that Obama says certain things during the political season to get support from the left, but he's proven to me at times during his first term to be much more subtle and thoughtful than an ideologue when he had to make important economic decisions.
This is true of every single modern president. All 100% of them would've grown government more if they'd gotten the backing for their agendas. The fact that grandiose politicians do not achieve all of their goals in no way constitutes a slowing in the size and scope of government. Should you wish to identify real-world ways in which government power has shrunk I think you'd be hard-pressed to find them.
I think all you can say is that the rate of growth might have slowed under one president/party of another. or that it would have grown even more under another president/party. but government has not stopped growing since the inception of the country.
Are you talking specifically about shrinkage of the federal government's use of power in the US since the 1960s? Here's one: Young men are not drafted into the military anymore. But obviously that's not what I was talking about. My point was about how the US shrank back from ideas like Lyndon Johnson's economic vision of "the great society".
Exactly. In fact the key to this bullshit is the idea that 'the left’s only answer is higher tax rates on wealth-creators.' The wealthy countries where inequality exploded the most are also the ones that adopted neo-liberalism wholesale - the best example being New Zealand from 1984 with it's Thatcher++ policies. Competitiveness meant a decline in real wages. That was supposed to be addressed by the rising tide, except the tide only rose for the few. Whilst Germany has also increased competitiveness, they did not adopt the kitchen sink approach. The key to everything is increasing real wages.
No really. I'm asking. I understand what is meant by "job creator." A job creator is somebody with a high income, the notion being that high incomes create jobs. (Not debating that proposition here, just saying I know how the term is used.) But WTF is a wealth creator? Please define.
I'm gonna be a smartass here. The answer is obvious...raising $75B per year by raising tax rates on the rich is pointless because the deficit is over a trillion dollars. The key to deficit reduction is cutting funding to PBS. Why? Because MAGIC!!!
not fair, you forgot Planned Parenthood And unemployment benefits (okay those actually cost money, but still a bad choice)
The Buffett tax would raise $5 billion per year and is dismissed as not being serious, not worth doing. Killing Big Bird would raise $450 million per year.
Still awaiting the definition of wealth creator. Because as far as I can tell, wealth creator = rich, and the argument thus becomes don't tax the rich because they make everybody rich. To which I say, surely you cannot be serious. Surely there's more to it than that.
I consider myself a wealth creator. every time I buy something, I'm creating wealth for others. I don't think I should be taxed. if I wasn't, I'd have like $12K extra each year to create wealth for other people. I'm egalitarian like that.