Rock v. hard place

[dgs49]

Andrew, I don't know the source of your bitterness, but I suggest you try to recognize it.

Some of what you are saying is complete nonsense.

In the first place, we have a President and a unified MSM trying to convince people to become resentful under the false premise that they are getting screwed and the "system is rigged by the rich and powerful," and so on. So it's not terribly surprising that some people are buying it.

But you should be a little bit more insightful. You claim to be an educated person, who has acheived a bit of success.

Who, exactly, is "...[screwing people] out of their fair chance to become successful people"? Are not new entrepreneurs starting thousands of new businesses every day? The vast majority of "one percenters" started life with basically nothing, as did the "ten percenters," and the "top income quintile." Aren't (even small) investors making successful choices and making money every day? Who is keeping anyone from getting into college, or enhancing their marketable skills?

If anyone is doing things that suppress Americans' ability to become financially successful it is Barry O. Are we aware of the activities of the NLRB, the EPA and State Department? The list of assaults on free enterprise is long and getting longer every day, thanks to the current Administration. Recall that pipeline thing?

We are in a deep recession right now - and only idiots like rubato blame it on one political party - but the basics remain the same. This is a society where anyone can start a new business and become wildly successful in a relatively short time. Most new businesses fail, but that has always been the case.

With the Fed printing money as fast as trees can be cut, surely you understand that our national economy is not a "zero-sum" proposition, and the fact that many people are making a lot of money doing things you consider unseemly doesn't cost you a fucking penny, nor does it remove money from the Total Pot that might otherwise be available to you. NOTHING is standing in your way, other than your own shortcomings and lack of courage.

There is nothing wrong with investors paying "only" fifteen percent of their income in FIT, when the investments that generate their taxable income, by and large, were purchased with income on which taxes had already been paid once. We refer to this phenomenon as "double taxation." And if you have a problem with taxing capital gains at a reduced rate (and by the way, you are an idiot if you believe that), call your fucking congressman. But don't criticize the taxpayer who avails himself of the incentives that our Federal Government creates.

And I will keep saying this until my fingers fall off, but WE DON'T PAY TAXES IN PERCENTAGES; WE PAY THEM IN DOLLARS! And I am certain that Mr Mitt has paid more DOLLARS in federal taxes than everyone who posts on this board, along with the other three republican candidates Mitt is competing with.

He is an idiot for allowing himself to be positioned as not paying sufficient taxes, when he pays more than 99% of the American population. But that's the subject of other threads.

Wake up, Andrew, don't drink the Kool-aid. You are too smart for that.

[Andrew D]

That's somewhat hard to follow, dgs49.

A "unified MSM"? Does that include FOX, which has claimed (falsely) to be the most watched media outlet in the US?

I certainly have plenty of shortcomings, and a lack of courage may be one of them. (On the other hand, various people who know me have suggested that I am at least sometimes courageous to, and even beyond, the point of stupidity.)

But what does that have to do with tax inequality?

Surely it would be more courageous for someone to risk some capital -- and, yes, investing capital involves risk; and, yes, taking a risk should entail the possibility of a reward -- at a tax rate equal to that paid by a dishwasher or a janitor or a secretary or a paralegal or a self-employed attorney than to risk the same capital only at a tax rate roughly half of what ordinary working people pay.

And let's be frank about the "risk". If I invest a million dollars into some enterprise, sure, I risk that amount of money. But if I invest a million dollars out of my three-billion dollars, how much "risk" am I actually taking?

If that investment tanks, will I be any worse off? On paper, yes. But in real-world terms? Not at all. I will still have two-billion nine-hundred ninety-nine million dollars.

So what am I going to lose? My eighty-seventh private golf course?

As to so-called "double taxation," if Mitt doesn't like it, he can avoid it. (And in large part, he evidently has: Much of his income is reportedly generated by limited-liability companies.)

But if he and his fellow members of the tiny few who make the rules don't like the fact that corporations are taxed on their income, and then individual investors are taxed on the income which they receive from those corporations, then they can just stop hiding behind the corporate veil. They can reorganize those corporations as partnerships, joint ventures, etc. And their "problem" will go away.

But they won't, because the truth of the matter is that even with so-called "double taxation," they are getting more money than they would otherwise. And they have the gall to whine about it. And you evidently swallow their whimperings hook, line, and sinker.

Yes, Romney (presumably) pays many more dollars than do most other people. And Romney gets many more dollars than do most other people.

And WITHOUT THE SOCIETY WHICH ALL OF US COLLECTIVELY PROVIDE, ROMNEY WOULD NOT GET ALL THAT MONEY. Romney owes the same share of his money as does a dishwasher or a self-employed attorney, because without the dishwasher and the self-employed attorney, the society which makes it possible for Romney to get all that money would not exist.

That's why so many rich people support, among other things, the financial-transactions tax -- a tax which would fall infinitesimally on those whose primary source of income is the money which they already have. Those people understand that the society created and maintained by those who do not have buckets of money lying around makes it possible for them to have buckets of money lying around.

Of course, the society created and maintained by the middle class is not the only reason that the wealthy are wealthy. Their wealth is most often also the result of their industry and acumen and good fortune.

But the most salient term is "also". The society created and maintained by the middle class is not a sufficient condition for the wealth of those who are already wealthy, but it is a necessary condition for the wealth of those who are already wealthy.

It is entirely reasonable to demand that the supremely affluent among us pay at least the same tax rates as the far less affluent among us -- indeed, it is entirely reasonable to demand that they pay far higher rates, because they are getting far greater benefits -- to support the society created and maintained by those who are not among the supremely affluent: Without us, they would not have what they have, and unlike you, most of them know it.

[dgs49]

Andrew, this is sad. You've drunk the Kool-aid.

To review,

My comments are not about Mitt Romney and other One Percenters complaining that they are paying too much, it's about wage earners complaining that the 1%-ers are not paying enough.

What you refer to as "tax inequality" is nothing more than the collective judgment of many Democrat and Republican Congresses. Investment income enjoys a privileged status, because it is (in large part) the machine that encourages investments that create the jobs that wage-earners require. And because it is generally funded by money on which taxes have already been paid.

It is not a fantasy that dividend income is (usually) double-taxed, it is a fact.

And you know as well as I do that janitors (other than those who work for Gub'mint), dishwashers, and secretaries, pay next to nothing in FIT. And you would howl with the rest of them if anyone proposed making them pay FIFTEEN PERCENT. The idea that they are generally paying taxes at a higher rate than Mitt Romney is silly beyond belief.

And what's with this bullshit about "the society which all of us collectively provide"? What a bunch of hogwash. If it weren't for entrepreneurs, and risk-takers like Bain Capital, we'd all be subsistence farmers with an average lifespan of 40 years. If every janitor in the country offed himself tomorrow, they could be replaced in a minute. If every capitalist moved off shore, we'd be sunk.

And if a financial risk is not enough to ruin you it doesn't count?

Really.

[Liberty1]

This thread is a perfect example of why Mitt is the worst rep candidate.

Who do all the leftest and Dems want, Mitt.

Expand the selsction to all of the candidates that were originally running and I believe the answer would be exactly the same.

[Lord Jim]

You're misinterpreting the results, Lib....

The question isn't about who one would prefer to have as the GOP nominee to run against Obama (if it were, I'm sure the results would be different) it's about who one would choose to be President, if one had to choose between these two.

Two completely different things.

[Guinevere]

You totally missed it, Lib. If there are Dems/Libs who might move off of Obama, Mittens has a better chance of getting their vote than Newton. In short, none of the Dems/Libs hate our country enough to vote for Newton Leroy.

So if the Repubs really want to win, and if they want to prive they are truly the "big tent" party they claim to be, they should nominate Mittens. Otherwise they will continue to prove they are the party of small minded bigots who don't give a damn about most of the citizens of this country.

[Econoline]

Given the fact that Mitt Romney is the multimillionaire son of a multimillionaire father--and given the fact that some here see no problems with economic mobility in the U.S. other than class envy, bitterness, and resentment--I thought this might be a good place to post this article:

Social Immobility: Climbing The Economic Ladder Is Harder In The U.S. Than In Most European Countries

Is America the "land of opportunity"? Not so much.

A new report from the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) finds that social mobility between generations is dramatically lower in the U.S. than in many other developed countries.

So if you want your children to climb the socioeconomic ladder higher than you did, move to Canada.

The report finds the U.S. ranking well below Denmark, Australia, Norway, Finland, Canada, Sweden, Germany and Spain in terms of how freely citizens move up or down the social ladder. Only in Italy and Great Britain is the intensity of the relationship between individual and parental earnings even greater.

For instance, according to the OECD, 47 percent of the economic advantage that high-earning fathers in the United States have over low-earning fathers is transmitted to their sons, compare to, say, 17 percent in Australia and 19 percent in Canada.

Recent economic events may be increasing social mobility in the U.S. -- but only of the downward variety. Harvard Professor Elizabeth Warren, for example, argues that America's middle class had been eroding for 30 years even before the massive blows caused by the financial crisis. And with unemployment currently at astronomical levels, if there are no jobs for young people leaving school, the result could be long-term underemployment and, effectively, a lost generation.

According to the OECD report, the main cause of social immobility is educational opportunity. It turns out that America's public school system, rather than lifting children up, is instead holding them down.

One particularly effective way governments can help children from disadvantaged backgrounds improve their prospects, according to the report, is to increase the social mix within schools. Doing so "appears to boost performance of disadvantaged students without any apparent negative effects on overall performance." Early childhood education also helps a lot.

Another big factor in social mobility is inequality, the report finds. The greater a nation's inequality, the harder it is for its children to improve their lot.

That confirms findings by other researchers. "The way I usually put this is that when the rungs of the ladder are far apart, it becomes more difficult to climb the ladder," Brookings Institution economist Isabel Sawhill tells HuffPost. "Given that we have more inequality in the U.S. right now than at any time since the 1920s, we should be concerned that this may become a vicious cycle. Inequality in one generation may mean less opportunity for the next generation to get ahead and thus still more inequality in the future."

There are things governments can do to reduce inequality, the OECD points out. Progressive tax systems and social programs help reduce income inequalities between parents "so that their descendants' income would converge more quickly."

Perhaps more realistically for this country, given the current political climate, higher short-term unemployment benefits can reduce the effect of socioeconomic background on student achievement, the reports says.

Gary Orfield, co-director of the Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles at UCLA writes in an e-mail to HuffPost: "I think that researchers know about the poor mobility and millions of people are experiencing it -- but it is little discussed in a society in which both parties purport to represent the 'middle class' and no one is talking about the locked-in poor or the risk of downward mobility in public life."

As for the report's conclusions about the value of social mixing in schools, Orfield, a long time foe of school segregation, notes: "There has been such a relentless conservative attack on desegregation strategies, even those focusing on class,... that I think there has been very little discussion of peer group effects (except in college) for a long time. During that void, however, the research evidence has become much more powerful.

"People need to understand that schools are basically students and teachers interacting together and that if you have classmates who know very little, you won't learn from them, you may be distracted by them. And teachers teaching entire classes and schools with students who are not ready to learn at their grade level and require all kinds of individual tutoring will often leave as soon [as] they can so these schools get the least experienced and qualified teachers, which perpetuates the inequality."

Just last month, Orfield's center issued a report urging President Obama, a supporter of charter schools, to take into account the extreme segregation of black students in those schools and to devise policies that encourage diversity.

All in all, the OECD report is an ugly reality check for a country that has historically seen itself as uniquely rewarding of talent; as a place free of the sorts of rigid social structures that led so many generations of immigrants to leave Old Europe.

And the goal of reducing barriers to social mobility isn't just a moral imperative, it's an economic necessity, the OECD notes. "First, less mobile societies are more likely to waste or misallocate human skills and talents. Second, lack of equal opportunity may affect the motivation, effort and, ultimately, the productivity of citizens, with adverse effects on the overall efficiency and the growth potential of the economy."

[rubato]

http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2008/~ ... 3EB31.ashx

We have the second-lowest economic mobility after England. But persistent propaganda has given people the opposite belief.











We may have been the land of opportunity at one time but that time is long passed.

yrs,
rubato

[dgs49]

Rube, those results can be interpreted in a lot of ways.

One might speculate that the "War on Poverty" has resulted in the people at the bottom (in the U.S.) hoping for some outside force - Gub-mint - to invervene in their lives to make them better, rather than pursuing the abundant opportunities that exist in this country.

Each generation of new immigrants from everywhere-but-Hispano-America proves yet again that with hard work, sacrifice, and focus on one's childrens' education, the Next Generation can be successful and fully integrated into the middle class.

The American Public School system isn't holding anyone at the bottom down. It's the disdain for education in the minority communities that takes care of that. Not to mention illegitimacy, substance abuse, and criminality, which tend to suppress advancement, and are not in any way "outside factors" like societal prejudice, which held previous generations back.

[Lord Jim]

It appears to be the consensus among the Libs and Dems who have posted in this thread that if forced to choose , they would pick Romney because they think Gingrich would accomplish all sorts of things that they see as awful, where as Romney would be relatively ineffective...

I find that interesting, because my analysis leads me to the exact opposite conclusion...

I think Newt would come in with a huge agenda, and accomplish almost nothing because of his chronic inability to work and play well with others, in either party. I think he'd be enormously ineffective, and much more likely to be a one term President.

Romney, on the other hand, would come in with a more modest agenda, but might actually get somethings done. (Like a rational domestic energy policy, for example)

[dgs49]

Guin, here's another take on the Mitt vs. Newt in the General Election situation.

Nobody in the Left wing of the Democrat party is going to vote Republican, period. Yet from this quarter one constantly hears that the R's ought to nominate a "centrist" or a "moderate."

But it doesn't work that way. John McCain was a "moderate."

The key to this election is going to be the working class independents and Democrats. Democrats are going after their votes by selling the idea that the entire working class are the victims of Republican Fat Cats (like Mitt Romney). Republicans are going to go after them by making the case that the Obama Administration is in fact, anti-jobs (for anyone other than government workers and the powerful unions).

Regardless of how you look at it, Newt is the better person to make the Republican case. The people on the left wing hate him with a passion, but so what? They wouldn't vote for a republican under any circumstances. It's the people in the middle who count, and those people don't care about his marital history or the circumstances of how he left the House, or any of that.

Mitt just plays into the hands of the Democrat narrative.

[Lord Jim]

Here's one for Sue:

[Scooter]

One might speculate that the "War on Poverty" has resulted in the people at the bottom (in the U.S.) hoping for some outside force - Gub-mint - to invervene in their lives to make them better, rather than pursuing the abundant opportunities that exist in this country.

The problem with that hypothesis is that every other country in that list has a more generous social safety net and greater government involvement in the economy than the U.S. Why aren't the poor "holding themselves down" in those countries to a greater extent then?

[Crackpot]

Jim think of Newt's inability to work and play well with others on a global rather than just a national scale.

[Sue U]

Here's one for Sue:

Thanks, I guess, but I don't know what it means.

[Lord Jim]

It's "Chucky-Newt"

[Econoline]

If I were a cartoonist or a stand-up comedian, I'd definitely be cheering for Newt.

[Gob]

The Best scenario for R's is probably the infamous "brokered convention," in which somebody like Chris Christy emerges as the nominee. Maybe Paul Ryan.

Please tell me this is not possible. After all the waste of money, political farce, mindless pontificating, debate over everything apart from real politics, and the whole stupid fucking dog and pony show that has been the nominations for repubbie candidate, someone else outside of the race could come in and get nominated? Someone who has not been part of this hysterically funny farrago?

Hey USA, I know why you are going down the pan politically!


Edited to add; My prediction on current showing is that whoever wins the repubbie nomination, if they get elected president, the USA will be a spent and bankrupted country within their term of office.

I'm offering 10:1 on $10 bets.

[dgs49]

scooter, I don't know what the answer is, but I do recognize "research" that is done to prove a pre-conceived notion and not to make a true scientific inquiry.

One thing I see all around me is people wasting good money on college degrees that have no economic value...then they whine about having college loans they can't pay off with the lousy jobs they are stuck with (or, more recently, that they can't even get).

And the fact is that if true economic mobility is the goal, going to college is rarely the best path. You are far more likely to succeed by buying a lawn mower and a pickup truck and going into business for yourself. And it's a lot cheaper.

One cannot fail to note that the people who constantly whine about the erosion of the middle class have no clue or proposal as to what to do about it, other than redistribution of wealth, which has never worked anywhere.

[Scooter]

I do recognize "research" that is done to prove a pre-conceived notion and not to make a true scientific inquiry.

That's always your answer when presented with facts that contradict your preconceived notions.