BlogHer - No More Pie? - Comments

Thank you for the numbers

Suzanne Reisman — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 11:21:25 -0500

I made the mistake of throwing rhetoric not supported by numbers into my first comment and deserved the flack I got for it (touche), I think Kim makes the most convincing argument here because she uses real numbers to show the effects that each plan have on highly educated working women.

On a related note, according to "The New York Sun" (a conservative paper), even the Heritage Foundation is pleased by parts of the Obama tax plan. (They don't like his capital gains tax increase, as one can see by following the link.) Usually I run away clutching my bleeding eyes (a bleeding heart is enough, thanks) after I read anything put forth by the Heritage Foundation, which is why I was very intrigued that they actually had something nice to say about this.

Suzanne Reisman, Contributing Editor - Feminism & Gender
Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS) & Oth

A quote that might interest you

Kim Pearson — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 20:28:38 -0500

“Reagan’s central insight — that the liberal welfare state had grown
complacent and overly bureaucratic, with Democratic policy makers more
obsessed with slicing the economic pie than with growing that pie —
contained a good deal of truth.”

-- Barack Obama, The Audacity of Hope quoted in, "How Obama Reconciles Dueling Views on the Economy," the New York Times, published August 20, 2008

I recommend the article. It suggests that Obama's economic thinking is not as doctrinaire as this discussion seems to pre-suppose.

Finally, I'd like to bring some non-partisan data to this discussion. If you follow this link, you will find the US Census Bureau's income data for women from the 2000 Census, sorted by age and level of education. The data are for women who worked full time during 1999. This link takes you to a side-by-side comparison of the impact of the McCain and Obama tax plans on the taxpayers at various income levels.

Now, according to the Census Bureau, the median income for women with advanced degrees in 1999 was $45,577. According to CNNMoney's analysis, a woman with that income would save an additional $319 under McCain's plan. Under Obama's plan, the same woman would save $1042. According to their analysis, even workers with income between $227,000 - 603,000 only see an increase of $12. You have to get above that level before you see significant tax increases. Now I can understand why someone who earns more than $2.9 million might be upset with Obama's plan -- their tax bill goes up $701,885.

I can understand if you think that Obama's plan is overly progressive, or will hit some law of diminishing returns a la the Laffer Curve. However, you will forgive me if I am confused as to the data set to which you are referring when you say that Obama is trying to harm highly educated working women.

Kim
BlogHer Contributing Editor|Professor Kim|

Quote

Melanie Nelson — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 16:53:07 -0500

I was digging around in my own files for some notes I needed for another post and found the following quote I thought was relevant:

"The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state government, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government - James Madison

Melanie
Blogging Basics 101
Bloggy Giveaways
Don't Try This at Home

They pay more becaue they earn more as a share

Suzanne Reisman — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 16:14:40 -0500

Your last point is that the top 10% of earners pay 71% of the taxes. This is because collectively earned 49% of all income. Meaning: Half of the income earned goes to 10% of the people. These same 10% own two-thirds of all the wealth (i.e. - assets like homes, investments, etc.) in the nation. Further, analysis shows that "the top 300,000 Americans [1 percent] collectively enjoyed almost as much income as the bottom 150 million Americans." They pay a higher percentage of taxes because they own a higher percent of the income and wealth. Its misleading to cite on part of this equation without the other.

Honestly, though, I support your call for a flat tax. A true flat tax that would not allow for any asset or income shelters. That would truly be the fairest system.

Just my two cents. Feel free to tax me on it.

Suzanne Reisman, Contributing Editor - Feminism & Gender
Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS) & Other Rants

I agree with Shannon here.

Melanie Nelson — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:54:08 -0500

I agree with Shannon here. We do have a responsibility to our community, but it is our personal responsibility. One we are in charge of doing or not. You cannot legislate whether a person should or shouldn't give back to the community. If you do, you are taking away his/her freedom in favor of another's so-called freedom. You can't have it both ways. It has to be up to the individual to give back and help. You may be surprised at how much people are willing to do when they are not forced or bullied by the government.

Melanie
Blogging Basics 101
Bloggy Giveaways
Don't Try This at Home

Suzanne, I respectfully disagree.

rocksinmydryer — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:20:03 -0500

You said, "most people don't make it because they don't have the opportunity." The United States may not be perfect, but it provides more freedom and oppportunity (as well as charitable aid) than any other political/economic system in history. Just ask Eastern Europe how effective legislating economic equality is.

You mentioned our collective responsibility as a society. I agree with you that a high level of responsibility exists, but I would argue that this responsibility rests--first and foremost--on the individual. I have a responsibility to behave charitably, ethically and sensibly, and to teach my children to do the same. Responsible individuals will breed a responsible society--not the other way around.

Shannon @ Rocks In My Dryer
www.rocksinmydryer.net
BlogHer Contributing Editor, Mommy and Family

Thank you all

BackyardConservative — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:13:12 -0500

A few points.

Unfortunately no one is running on a flat tax, but I think it is the way to go. If you are concerned about fairness, it is the most fair--without causing lousy unintended consequences--like punishing highly educated working women. Those who make more pay more, but at the same percentage as everyone else. (That way they are not penalized earning more--which helps provide for their families, helps the economy grow, and helps provide jobs for others.)

Obama is going the opposite direction.

As for the rich--most Americans don't inherit wealth, most earn their wealth by their own efforts.

And the rich already pay more than their fair share:

And he stuck to it on capital gains, even after ABC's
Charlie Gibson noted that the record shows increased taxes on capital
gains -- which would affect 100 million Americans -- would likely lead
to a decrease in government revenues: "Well, Charlie, what I've said is
that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of
fairness."

Translated into ordinary English, what that means is
that it doesn't really matter whether a tax increase actually brings in
more revenue. It's not about robbing from the rich to give to the poor.
Robbing from the rich will do, especially if it's done in the name of
fairness.

Now there are good reasons Mr. Obama is not likely to
pursue the revenue side of the fairness question. As this newspaper
noted in a recent editorial, the latest data from the Internal Revenue
Service does not show to Mr. Obama's advantage. As we come to the end
of the Bush administration, the top 1% of American taxpayers already
pay 40% of all income taxes -- the highest level in 40 years. The top
10% of income earners pay 71% of the taxes.

Flat Tax

reginatgg — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 11:42:12 -0500

I hadn't heard that there was a viable candidate running that was propsing a flat tax. Maybe I missed it.

Gina

http://momwifeworkerbee.blogspot.com/

Stacked decks

Suzanne Reisman — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 11:27:28 -0500

The numbers speak for themselves: most people don't make it because they don't have the opportunity. When we give people a fair shot and they don't make it, that's a different situation. When we stack the deck and then blame everyone for not jumping 600 hurdles because that's what someone's great-grandparent did, that's a little screwy to my sense of fairness. An opportunity is not the same as a handout, and every kid deserves to live in a safe community, a warm home, have health care, and be educated to the best of his/her ability. That costs money, and it is our collective responsibility as a society to see that that happens.

Suzanne Reisman, Contributing Editor - Feminism & Gender
Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS) & Oth

First of all, I'm ALWAYS in the mood for pie...

rocksinmydryer — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 11:24:08 -0500

...but second of all (and more seriously), I think that you've raised an excellent point that touches on the root of the economic difference between liberals and conservatives.

It seems to me that liberal economic policy is geared primarily toward EQUALITY--leveling the playing field for all, often without taking into account issues such as hard work, merit, and opportunity. Conservative (or even libertarian) economic policy, on the other hand, is geared toward FREEDOM--allowing for each individual to choose their own path, create their own opportunities, and exercise their individual talents. The conservative path may be messier in the short-run, but in the long-run, it leads to more widespread individual happiness.

Shannon @ Rocks In My Dryer
www.rocksinmydryer.net
BlogHer Contributing Editor, Mommy and Family

Dividing the pie fairly is extremely important

Suzanne Reisman — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 11:18:48 -0500

Running with your pie analogy, I think it is fair to say that this collective pie is divided unfairly. Currently, the top 10% of the US collectively earned 49% of all income. Worse, analysis shows that "the top 300,000 Americans [1 percent] collectively enjoyed almost as much income as the bottom 150 million Americans." (Source: New York Times) On top of that, according to a 2003 Federal Reserve Board report, the top 10% of Americans owned over two-thirds of the nation's wealth, while the bottom 50% of households own only 3% of the nation's wealth. Thanks to the recent mortgage crises, it is likely that the lowest 50% now own even less, as most of their assets were in their homes.

Given the extremely inequitable distribution among workers in the United States, it seems very reasonable to ask a class of people that owns all of the wealth to pay their fair share. As Mata pointed out, just people someone is poor does not mean that she does not work hard. ~~Oddly, I find that the wealthier someone is, the less likely they are to work at all, although I have no concrete evidence for this, just anecdotes.~~edited out because it was a completely unfair comment and undermined what the number say. Lesson learned: Always stick to numbers!

Finally, as a successful working woman who understands that it takes money to get education - whether it is a high quality elementary education (wealthy communities like that in which I grew up pay top dollar to educate their offspring) or a college degree - I believe that Obama understands my needs perfectly well. I need the United States to provide a level playing field so that we can develop our potential wealth of human capital to its highest potential. That means that I have to pay for it. We ALL have to pay into a functional society, and if I can afford more because I benefited from a system that invested in me, then I have a moral obligation to pay more.

Suzanne Reisman, Contributing Editor - Feminism & Gender
Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS) & Other Rants

Donning my flame-retardent suit. One moment please.

Melanie Nelson — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 10:59:05 -0500

Suzanne said: Given the extremely inequitable distribution among workers in the United States, it seems very reasonable to ask a class of people that owns all of the wealth to pay their fair share.

I agree with this. Those people should pay a “fair” share--not more. If tax is 2%, then they pay 2% just like everyone. Not 6% or 8% because they have more. They earned it. They made choices. They worked hard. It is theirs.

Suzanne said: As Mata pointed out, just [because] someone is poor does not mean that she does not work hard. Oddly, I find that the wealthier someone is, the less likely they are to work at all, although I have no concrete evidence for this, just anecdotes.

Hmm. Might I say, then, (as unpopular as it will be) that I find the poorer someone is, the more babies they’ve had at an earlier age and are usually unwed and probably dropped out of school? I have no concrete evidence for this, just anecdotes and observation. Certainly I know that this is not always the case, but if we are going to make blatant generalizations we need to do it across the board.

The American people are hard workers. They are entrepreneurial. They have more freedom than anywhere else in the world. If Lost Boys can come from Africa and make good choices and have the patience to do what needs to be done for an education and to make money, then those who were born here should be able to take advantage of those same opportunities and choices. If they don’t (by dropping out of high school, getting pregnant before they’re ready to support a family, or not taking advantage of the Vo-Tech programs at their schools), those who do are not responsible for them. We are responsible for ourselves.

I see this as a gratification issue. Those who have made poor choices are looking for the immediate gratification and don’t have the patience to work for what needs to be achieved.

It’s true that some people are born wealthy. But look at their family’s history. You’ll usually find that someone’s great-grandparent(s) saw an opportunity and took it. They worked hard and made a life for themselves. To say that someone can’t make it because of the hand they were dealt is insulting to them. You are essentially saying they aren’t smart enough to get out of their situation. You are telling them they are down before they even tried to get up. You aren’t helping them find their way out of the poverty, you’re asking for a hand-out from someone who already did the work.

Melanie
Blogging Basics 101
Bloggy Giveaways
Don't Try This at Home

Hmm

Mata H — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 07:37:10 -0500

So are you suggesting that richer people have more money because they deserve it more? Because they have worked harder? Please say that isn't so.

~~ Contributing Editor, Mata H. also blogs right along at Time's Fool

No More Pie?

BackyardConservative — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 00:13:13 -0500

I like pie. Lemon meringue is my favorite in the summer, but I can go for key lime anytime.

Why talk about pie? Barack Obama is eyeing it.

My piece of the pie doesn't deprive someone else. Life is not a zero sum game. My success is not someone else's failure. My wanting to learn more does not mean someone else learns less. And if I have the chance to earn more it doesn't necessarily mean someone else makes less.

We are what we make of ourselves. Our biggest asset is ourselves. It's called human capital. And in a healthy economy, the pie keeps getting bigger as the economy grows.

I remember on high school curriculum night, freshman year for one of my kids, the world history teacher was making a pitch that custodians should be paid as much as teachers (You may well wonder what this had to do with world history--this kind of thing went on all the time--it was union agitation writ large at an upscale liberal school. Here's another kind of teacher.) So I bit my tongue then, but I'm blogging this now. I wanted to ask, well then, why should any kid, including mine, listen to you? Why should they go on to college, or earn a further degree? What's the incentive, aside from personal satisfaction?

And I could have gone on to ask, what did you learn, with all your further schooling, that you talk like this now? Perhaps the custodian did have more wisdom. Perhaps he or she should have been paid as much as this teacher.

But for most of us our effort pays off. Let me ask you this--what do you think of a presidential candidate who would penalize people trying to earn a little more? Why should a family that works a little harder have to pay a bigger percentage of their income? Especially as families are supporting the children they're raising for our future.

Why has Barack Obama declared war on highly educated working women? NY Sun:

But on this one, all the indignant bluster mustered by Messrs. Furman and Goolsbee can't hide the fact that a rise to 43.6% from 39.6% would be a 24.6% increase in the federal marginal income tax rate. And, as we predicted last week, the consequence is that a lot of highly educated working women, faced with the prospect of turning over 54% of their income to the government (not to mention the cost of child care), will just stay home.

For Messrs. Furman and Goolsbee to counter this criticism with the news that Mr. Obama favors an increase in the minimum wage is just insulting. Most of the women who are going to be paying Mr. Obama's 54% nominal marginal income tax rate are not minimum wage earners. They are doctors and lawyers and writers and bankers and accountants and teachers and small businesswomen.

Even formerly Marxist countries which robbed individuals, taking from each according to his abilities and giving back a miserly each according to his needs, now have largely adopted a flat tax. They take the same percentage of everyone's paycheck, no matter the income. No more class warfare. No more demonizing the "other" to score political points. No more public policy which shrinks our economy and impoverishes us all.

How come Barack Obama doesn't get it where working women are concerned?

It's no wonder some prominent Hillraisers are still mad. (How come he is so arrogant?) (Mama would be so ashamed.) HT riverdaughter.

Still feel like a piece of pie?

Contributing Editor Anne Leary also blogs at BackyardConservative and UNCoRRELATED