Paul Krugman wrote an article in the New York Times Magazine this week about tax cuts and their long-term effect on the federal government. I'm having a hard time finding the part where he's full of shit, and he doesn't really paint a pretty picture. What's the other side of this story? Does he overstate the political difficulty of rolling back tax cuts? Or does he overstate the calamity of collapsing social programs? The forum on the webpage is down and I haven't been able to find any conservative reviews of it yet. I want to hear that he's full of it. Otherwise, the future is starting to look really shitty.
I'm probably preaching to the proverbial, but I thought maybe one of you heads might know more than I do about this hoo-ha.
Here's another site with the article if you haven't submitted yourself to the NYTimes Spam machine yet. It's uglier, but it's the same text.
Posted by wadsbone at September 18, 2003 06:25 AMi've been saying this for years. even in 6th grade i was saying this - ask jennifer knight. rolling back taxes at the expense of social programs and education will kill us all.
the 7th point in the article is what they were discussing on npr a few weeks ago and how it seems that the ultimate goal of the current republicans in office is to bankrupt the government and start over. right now, the future is bleak. that being said, i'm all for the taxation they have in socialist countries (up around 50-60 percent) in exchange for free education, no student loans and health care. and how about some government price control so we can all afford to eat? and when i say we all i mean every freaking person in the country. and some decent public transportation that actually takes you where you want to go in reasonable time.
when i was off health care, i usually paid about 200-300 dollars a month and that was just so i wouldn't get pregnant and have panic attacks every day. going to the e.r. for a sedative because i hyperventilated until my hands became paralyzed cost 600 dollars.
things need to change — and this time for the better.
Yeah, she said that.
Posted by: Jennifer Knight at September 18, 2003 09:29 PMThank you Munich!
Posted by: Michael Knight at September 18, 2003 09:30 PMWhy should I pay 50-60% of what I work for and earn for myself and my famiily so that more people who do not work and earn their own income can educate their children, get health care, assistance to start their own businesses that I couldn't get if I tried, free or cheaper housing, or anything else? I work damn hard and make personal sacrifices to make sure I have money coming in and that I take care of me and mine. Why should I pay for someone who is not willing to do the same? Why not make health care mandatory for business to supply all employees instead of screwing me for being a responsible adult? Why not let people say where they want their tax dollars allocated to so if everyone really does care about militarisitc advancement they can make 100% of the federal income tax go to that? or 50 to education and 50 to welfare? No taxation without representation sound familiiar? Any of you feel adequately represented for how much you pay in taxes now? Why would more taxes make it any better?
I do not see any WIIFM. (or for the non HR/management buzzword cronym kinda peeps out there. What's In It For Me?)
Raising and lowering taxes doesn't seem to be so difficult Jr. and Sr. both did it.
I do not agree with lesser taxation for the high income levels though... I am a big proponent of a flat tax for individuals and make taxation on corporate entities float since most atx write offs are geared towards them.
I can't tell you what the other side of the story is, since I decided long ago never to walk in anyone's shadow except Paul Krugman's, but him I'll walk in his shadow and believe whatever he says.
As a way-back Krugman sycophant, though, I can tell you that he's been saying this stuff for a long, long time. His new book, "The Great Unraveling" (which is mostly just a collection of columns that don't actually seem to fit together that well as a book) shows how he started out by pointing out basic errors in the reasoning behind the Bush administration's tax cuts, figuring that everything would be straightened out once the public did the math for themselves. Anyone who assumes the public is ever going to do the math, though, has clearly been boxed up in his office at Princeton too long. PK quickly graduated to railing in full color against a deluge of flat-out lies about the tax cuts (everything from "they benefit the middle class" to a flagrant double-counting of huge segments of tax income, to make the shortfall seem less egregious), and he's been railing ever since. The latest NYT magazine article was basically just a recap of the most important points of his long-running, incremental exposition of how the numbers behind tax cuts actually work out. There's lots more, if you want to read some of the backlog at his website.
And, if all of this has only whetted your appetite for some op/ed page fiscally-oriented liberalism, check out Stanley Fish's piece from today's times, about the cost of higher education (available at
this jeaun for a few more days).
I'm just guessing here, Keester, but I don't think you read the article, or you were just responding to Lizz's overstated post.
First of all, the 50-60% tax rate that Lizz proposed is way, way more than we'd ever need, and also way more than almost any country pays. Finland is up near (or at) the top at around 50%. And just for the record, the benefits are: everyone gets an education, everyone gets healthcare, homelessness is at 0%, and most everyone's got the loot to take a 6 week vaction to Greece every year. It's a small country, and the situation is different there, but the vast majority of people get some benefit out of it. If you can't see the WIIFM, you need to look harder.
Second, and more importantly, those tax cuts have nothing to do with you! You're taxes aren't changing by any remotely lifestyle-altering amount unless you're making four times (semi-random multiplier) as much as what ANY of us are making. That's what the ruckus is about. Your social security benefits go down, your public schools are shittier, your medicare coverage goes down, you've got to deal with more homeless people on the street begging for your hard earned cash. Arguably, you're going to have to deal with more crime because more people are destitute. In exchange you pay a couple hundred less in taxes every year. The folks who ARE working for their money are the ones who get screwed by this crap. It's the people who inherit over 5 million dollars (estate tax), the people who own large shares of corporations (dividend tax), and the people who make more than 400 grand a year (income tax) that are getting the benefits out of this. They've got plenty of money for healthcare, education and retirement.
Give me the other side of THAT story, or you're just swallowing the con hook, line and sinker.
Posted by: wadsbone at September 19, 2003 03:16 AMAs for the flat tax, it hasn't been an issue lately, so these articles are a few years out, but it's probably worth weighing against what you know about them.
Posted by: wadsbone at September 19, 2003 03:21 AMbone, does your finnish friend have any eligible male friends that i could marry real quick?
long live socialism!!!
Posted by: lw at September 19, 2003 03:27 AMI read it. I was at work so perhaps I was somewhat distracted, but I am relatively confident the gist of it was grokked. I was partly playing devils advocate and imagining what people I grew up with and work with would respond to this. I have had this argument with people because I really do think we should have national health care.
Based on conversations I have had with people regarding this the responses has been something along the lines of:
"So let me get this straight. I work my ass off. meanwhile my neighbor sits on his ass and gets the same thing out of this as me? That's bullshit."
This to me also illustrates why communisum will never be a viable form of goverment. Human nature. You get 10 people working in a factory doing the same job. One of them does less than the others. Watch how quick the others notice he doesn't get fired and keeps getting paid and see how much production goes down accross the board. One bad apple messes everything up in a communist society. Because the reward for excelence is not there.
Indiviually on some of your other points I have used int his argument and had a hard time arguing with are,
social security:
"You can not retire on Social security alone!" or "I do not even plan on that being around by the time I retire and have already made plans for my own retirement so if I get anything out of it I will be pleasantly surprised." (which I hope you are all doing because I definitely am)
Public Schools:
"I do not send my kid to public school." "My suburb's school is awesome" "I will move to the suburbs when I have a kid" "I wouldnt send my kid to a public school if you paid me"
As far as the robbery/begging/homeless replies it boiled down to:
"Seems shitty I should have to pay higher taxes for the people who would rob me or beg me for money to get my money automatically given to them so they will not have to beg me for money, rob me, and can have a home. That is just like the mafia charging for protection from themselves" And I gotta admit I felt like an rube when I got this reply to my argument. I thought I had some WIIFM on this argument, but could not come back to that reply with anything.
I know/knew the tax cuts are not helping me and are geared to the upper crust. I am not arguing for them as they have been granted, but rather saying I do not buy into the idea that if we dont raise taxes the government will fall to pieces that was forwarded. There is a suburb down by me that privatized all public works they could and gave businesses tax breaks to move into the community to grow commerce. The residents now pay no property tax. This is small scale but illustrates that the problem may not be more money needed but more likely a need for better handling of it and it's expenditure.
The flat tax stuff you posted is interesting I have not read it all but I think I should explain a little more about how I thik it should work and why. With the flat tax I envision, as an individual you get no write offs what so ever or perhaps just children and intrest on primary residence. The more I deal with people the more I realize that a big part of the reason the people with money have it is they do not fork over as much as they should to Uncle Sam because they have real good and creative accountants. I think if you leveled the playing field the percentage trickled down to the lower and middle classes would be less. Of course I have no numbers to support this ;) but this has been my observation.
Posted by: Keester at September 19, 2003 08:39 AM
Keester, socialism doesn't mean that you might work your ass off and get the same stuff as someone who doesn't work at all. It does mean that they get a little more and you get a little less... but even in a socialist country, there are rich and poor people. The main difference is that the poor people have some dignity in education and health care. You're thinking of straight up communism, which is a fool's dream.
I'm not as hard a capitalist as you are, but I'm nowhere near the socialist that lizz seems to be. I think that all the arguments for more socialized government programs seem to revolve around the belief that EVERYONE in the country has a right to these services. I mean, it seems to be a first-principle part of the argument. If you start with the assumption that people only have the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, it begins to lose coherency.
Posted by: Graver at September 19, 2003 03:51 PMthe platform of the socialist party a few years back was that they'd raise minimum wage to 10 dollars an hour and cap off wages at 100 dollars an hour. education would be free and our social programs would finally be up to par with the rest of the western world. the rest of the platform involved the classic get lizz to vote for them hooey - pro-choice, pro-environment, gun control, anti big business, etc. and they were going to bring back national arts funding!
what's in it for you? how about a city ballet or sports team that isn't sponsered by abbott laboratories or u.s. cellular? how about preserving national monuments and landmarks for future generations instead of bulldozing them for oil or coal? (currently being debated in colorado/utah/wyoming)
in cuba, if you get married, you get a paid 2 week honeymoon with spouse on some tropical island off the main island. and you're allowed to do this every 3 years. and because of the crappy economy, they have a new policy that school is the new work. and you can argue that there are cab drivers with mad phds because that's all the work they can get. funny thing is, the same thing happens here. and i'd much rather be poor in the caribbean than chicago.
Posted by: lw at September 19, 2003 04:07 PMWow... I do not think I have ever heard anyone argue the merits of living in Cuba. I can not honestly say I ever expected that I would either. Perhaps I will move to Cuba , become a mormon, and get me a new wife every 3 years. Then I would take them all on honeymoon together in these enchanted islands. It would be like a communist mormon fantasy island. Minus Tattoo and Ricardo Monteblan but with Fidel, cigars, Joseph Smith, and lots of wives!
My whole aversion to the idea of more taxes for a more socialist approach to things is not that I think I will be at the same standard of living as someone who does not work. Obviously I will be bringing in more money than someone who is not pulling their weight.
But where does one draw the line?
In my heart I see why housing for all is a good idea. In my mind I wonder when my taxes will then go up to supply this person with electric too. What about cable TV? Internet access? Phone?
In my heart I know national healthcare should be provided. In my mind I wonder if I will have to wait longer for my healthcare because my doctor is helping people who do not conduct themselves reponsibly and just sponge off the system. I wonder if my doctor is too busy to spend time on my problems because his case load. I wonder if malpractice suits would then get lodged against the government because they are the suppllier of the healthcare and if that would then drive my taxes up further. I wonder if I will have to come out of pocket to get supplemental healthcare so I can have a good doctor in private practice see me in a reasonable amount of time.
If I want to go to the ballgame I dont care what you call the park I buy a ticket and go. If I want to go to the ballet or symphony, I buy a ticket and go. If I want ot see art I go to the museum or a gallery and pay to get in. As far as monuments and landmarks and such. I think that is more of an environmental issue and my taxes going up or down would have a lot less effect on that than legislation and responsible government officials with the public's interest at heart instead of their personal gains.
As far as life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
Life = you are alive.
Liberty = you are free from confinement, servitude, and forced labor.
Pursuit of happiness = go crazy! find some happiness. Persue it even.
Nowhere in there is anything about housing, healthcare, or paid honeymoons every 3 years.
This is saying work hard,get ahead. Basically, the system as it stands is set up to reward effort. I do not see fault in that as an ideal.
Sure things could be better but I think an overhaul of the government practices and procedures would go a lot further towards any socialist goals coming to fruition that raising taxes to give politicians more money to misappropriate and take money directly out of the working man's pocket. Lets fix whats broke before we add more to the system.