ON MANY ISSUES, I’M PRETTY FAR to the left of the current iteration of the Democratic Party. But I’m really more a “just society economic populist” than a “lefty,” per se.
I’ll just mention where I stand on a couple of issues, and why.
Immigration
I’m for deregulating the border — no more fences, certainly no walls, no patrolling the border. Or let’s say we assign the same number of agents to the Mexican border as the Canadian border.
Make the new rule: “Anyone who wants to come to the United States and be a citizen can do so.” The rules should be simple: Live here for five years, keep your nose clean and work — in short, don’t be a burden on society — and the folks at the Immigration and Naturalization Service will swear you in and congratulate you on becoming a citizen. INS’s new mission will be solely to serve the needs of people who want to immigrate and become “naturalized.” Put up signs at the border that say:
Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
If America is to be the “beacon of hope” it sells itself as, a place where people can renew themselves and their prospects, then it must “walk the talk.”
I think such a shift would both spur countries south of the border to reform their systems to keep their populations from emigrating en masse, and renew American life, leavening it with new energy, hybridizing its culture for the better in the same way immigrants and their descendants always have. Can you imagine an America without John Muir? Albert Einstein? Irving Berlin?
When I was in the Army and stationed in El Paso, Texas, I took a walk one day to a suburb in the southern part of the city. There I saw a view I will never forget. I looked through someone’s side yard, over their back yard swimming pool, and saw, maybe a mile away, Mexicans living across the border on the opposite slope of the Rio Grande Valley in shacks and cinderblock houses, with no electricity, and sewage running in open culverts. How strange it was that only a mile or so separated American opulence and Mexican poverty, and that the separation was there because some people had decided there was a notional thing called a “border” between the two places.
It gave me a distinct feeling of metaphysical dread: here was glaring, concrete injustice, and it seemed to be questioned by no one.
Taxes
I’m for a truly progressive income tax, formed from the basic principles that “To whom much has been given, much will be required,” and “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.” (Both those quotes are from the Bible.) The tax rate on income over a certain amount (to be determined) should be 91 percent, as it was under that fiery Leninist, Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower.
There was once a consensus in this country that we wanted the government to help balance society by keeping things fairly equal — at least more equal than they end up being under unfettered capitalism — and thereby providing social and economic stability. It’s worth mentioning that places in the world where this ethic does not hold are places where a few oligarchs lord it over desperately poor populations; these places seem always to be on the verge of armed revolution.
Franklin Roosevelt spoke about this explicitly in his acceptance speech at the 1936 Democratic convention:
“Throughout the nation, opportunity was limited by monopoly. Individual initiative was crushed in the cogs of a great machine. The field open for free business was more and more restricted. Private enterprise, indeed, became too private. It became privileged enterprise, not free enterprise.
“An old English judge once said: ‘Necessitous men are not free men.’ Liberty requires opportunity to make a living — a living decent according to the standard of the time, a living which gives man not only enough to live by, but something to live for.
“For too many of us the political equality we once had won was meaningless in the face of economic inequality. A small group had concentrated into their own hands an almost complete control over other people’s property, other people’s money, other people’s labor — other people’s lives. For too many of us life was no longer free; liberty no longer real; men could no longer follow the pursuit of happiness.
“Against economic tyranny such as this, the American citizen could appeal only to the organized power of government. The collapse of 1929 showed up the despotism for what it was. The election of 1932 was the people’s mandate to end it. Under that mandate it is being ended.
“The royalists of the economic order have conceded that political freedom was the business of the government, but they have maintained that economic slavery was nobody’s business. They granted that the government could protect the citizen in his right to vote, but they denied that the government could do anything to protect the citizen in his right to work and his right to live.”
Because of the policies enacted by FDR and his successors, the 40 years from 1933 to 1973 were a time of (more or less) steady improvement in the economic situation of the vast majority of Americans. If we can revive the New Dealers’ animating principles, I believe we can resume — and strengthen — that progress.
Matt Talbot is a writer and poet, as well as an old Benicia hand. He works for a tech start-up in San Francisco.
Sharing is caring!
Matt: We have miles to go before we sleep…keep thinking and writing, yours is a unique voice. – pb
Just wondering…
From the above article:
“Throughout the nation, opportunity was limited by monopoly. Individual initiative was crushed in the cogs of a great machine. The field open for free business was more and more restricted. Private enterprise, indeed, became too private. It became privileged enterprise, not free enterprise…”
What would Mr. Talbot think about a jobs program sponsored by the Federal Reserve?
A ‘QE for Jobs’ Program Alternative
It doesn’t take much imagination to envision a better, more efficient, less wasteful way to create jobs. If the Obama administration had a 21st century Works Progress Administration direct job creation program, it could have the Fed print the $1 trillion QE3 and create 20 million jobs at a fully loaded full time $50,000 a year. That would instantly wipe out every U-6 jobless person in the US. That’s 20 million jobs at $50k vs. the Fed’s current ‘unemployment reduction program’ of 1 million jobs at $33k.
Why should the Fed print money and subsidize the incomes of super-wealthy investors and their banks? Why shouldn’t the Fed use its printing press to instantly finance the creation of 20 million jobs directly by the US government? That’s a jobs program that would add nothing to the US deficit and debt, just as the Fed’s QE programs have added nothing to the US deficit and debt.
Those who argue to do so would result in a major inflation are simply ignoring the facts. Nearly $4 trillion in QEs to date have had no effect on inflation in goods and services. They have only inflated financial
securities prices. Inflation in real goods and services continues to drift lower, flirting with bona fide deflation. If the Fed wants the get goods and services inflation to rise to 2.5%, a QE for Jobs program noted above would likely do it.
Others might argue that a $1 trillion ‘QE for Jobs’ program would mean the Fed would have to print $1 trillion every year to keep paying for the jobs in subsequent years. But that’s nonsense. It doesn’t take much imagination to understand that $1 trillion in jobs-related income in the hands of 20 million workers would result in a major boost to consumption. That in turn would result in businesses finally investing in the US and creating jobs to match the consumption demand. As real investment rose, the Fed ‘QE for Jobs’ might actually be scaled back in magnitude.
http://www.zcommunications.org/the-fed-qe-and-jobs-by-jack-rasmus.html
Agreed. Always enjoy your columns.
Thanks, see more at http://www.peterbray.org/pedro or my blog, http://www.simpletonspath.wordpress.com
Pb
Wonderful! And one thing that happens when someone is threatened with a high tax rate–they reinvest that money in their business rather than pay it. And what does that create? Jobs innovation and growth! Awesome article!
Matt it is always risky to reference the Bible, especially when the quote used is taken out of context to the entire book of Acts, or even to just Chapter Four.
Matt stated: “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.” (from the Bible.)
Translations may vary, an alternate:
And laid (their proceeds) down at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need
Two issues here, one more over riding than the other:
1) The people selling some of their possessions and giving the proceeds to the Apostles were Christians, who were preparing themselves for an unknown danger that lay ahead. To put it in basic terms, they were singularly united for a cause and thus ‘willingly’ made sacrifices in support of each other (‘willingly’ is subject to discussion as witness in Ch. 5).
2) This is the more important part: This was being done on a voluntary basis, if you wanted to continue in support of the cause, and not by an act of law enforced by the gladiators of Rome.
No one argues that benevolent generosity is a principle well established in Biblical teachings, but to then extend the graciousness of a voluntary act to justify confiscation of wealth to be distributed as the government deems appropriate is a wholly separate subject. A disservice is done when the two are conflated.
Also … Gladiators? Do you mean centurions? WTF do gladiators have to do with it?
Actually Christ taught charity and sharing. He did not teach taking. There is a very distinct and profound difference between taking and willful sharing. As I state below, Mr. Talbot has confused his quote with Karl Marx.
I would argue that the early Christian mandate was a little deeper than that. Indeed, it was mandated. To be a true Christian, in the beginning, meant that you did sacrifice most of what you had for the good of the whole community. If you didn’t do that, if you held onto your stuff and didn’t share, you were not considered a vital part of the community of The Way. So, in that sense, it wasn’t just a simple, voluntary act and cannot, in any way, be compared to modern “charitable giving.” The early followers of The Way knew they would sink or swim together and that they would surely sink without sharing of resources. This is a lesson we have forgotten in our westen quest for “individual rights,” “pulling ourselves up by our bootstraps,” and “neither borrowers or lenders be,” which are all mostly Calvinistic corruptions of the real message of Acts,which is what Matt was talking about. If we don’t get back to making decisions based on the common good, we are on the same road the Roman Empire took…as a matter of fact, parallels to that empire and its road to demise are almost scary with what we are doing in our own society today.
We should be so lucky as to be on the road the Roman Empire took. If you count the Byzantines they lasted 2,000-plus years.
This article is a joke, right? No one could possibly be that naive.
Beach Bum:
Reagan said it best:
“It isn’t so much that liberals are ignorant. It’s just that they know so many things that aren’t so.”
Yeah, as if “Holier than thou” conservatives were any less flawed. Funny how you guys always have to turn some intelligent piece writing into a conservative, ideology agenda…it gets really BORING, Dennis…do you have any other channels on your Ronnie Reagan TV set? Wasn’t he the Bozo that knew little or nothing about the Contra Affair and relied on Nancy’s Ouija board for updates on timely decisions? Two can play this silly 4th grader’s game….Duh!–pb
How many times now have you said you do not read anything I write, ten, twelve, twenty?
DDL: I read every paragraph, phrase and Conservative-agenda-ideological hiccup you write with enthusiasm, passion, and unquestioning exhilaration…Wasn’t Ronnie Reagan also that Grade B actor who hustled 20-Mule Team Boraxo Soap on “Death Valley Days,” in the late 1950’s? That was inspiring stuff for a 12-year old! He was awesome! Where’d he go after that? Politics? Really? That must have been a real stretch…Hang on to your heroes, they’re exciting, but I prefer Gabby Hayes in a weathered old hat and really scraggly beard…same generation almost…Trigger, Ronnie, Gabby…those were the days…pb
He also said, “Facts are stupid things.”.
That is as valid as claiming that Obama once said “I have been to all 57 states.”
Reasonable people do not hold a misspoken phrase or word against someone.
Far be it for anyone to present quotes out of context on here, right?
John Stuart Mill said it better:
“Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”
This does not help your cause. So kindergarten sandbox. “You’re stupid”. Geez
The truth will set you free.
So…when DDL quotes Reagan calling liberals ‘ignorant’…that’s ok…but when I respond with a quote that refers to conservatives as ‘stupid’…you wet your pants. Nice consistency. More evidence of the conservative DNA.
Oh, my…see what I mean? The conservatives get on board, think they own the ship, and soon all the shorts are in a wad…No wonder I don’t participate much in these Slumber Party Wars…it’s all too trivial to get sweaty about. pb
OMG Benician … Read the quote! Specifically Reagan stated “liberals are NOT ignorant”. Will you guys graduate from kindergarten? Do you really want this thing to degenerate into name calling?
Serious question to Benician and Mark Harrison: do you truly believe Conservatives are stupid? Yes or no?
Was your messing up my name designed to elicit a yes to that question?
Never mind. In other Jesical news, I like that new pope!
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/20/world/europe/pope-bluntly-faults-churchs-focus-on-gays-and-abortion.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&src=igw&_r=0
Yes I read the quote. Did you? It concluded with “…It’s just that they know so many things that aren’t so.” Which is another way of saying ‘ignorant’. That’s what’s supposed to make the remark clever. So clever it sailed right over your head.
Do I believe conservatives are stupid? Not all…but if you:
1) believe Obama is a Kenyan, or
2) believe Obamacare has death panels, or
3) believe Obama is a Muslim, or
4) don’t believe in science, or
5) like a plurality of Republicans in Louisiana think Obama was responsible for the poor response to Katrina, or
6) think voter fraud exists in greater than the most miniscule of numbers, or
7) anything else demonstrably false that Faux tries to tell you is true….
then…let me put this delicately so you don’t wet your pants again…you’re in need of greater education.
Actually Matt, it was Karl Marx who stated “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.”
You quoted and embraced the philosophy of an atheist communist.
Open borders and communism … Interesting. I don’t find your philosophies dangerous, just very extreme. Also, I wouldn’t say you were a liberal, but truly a Marxist. Marx believed in open borders also, as a means of furthering the revolution.
Thanks for sharing and I encourage you to keep writing.
Jesus was the first Socialist, this isn’t really a question, but a statement of fact based upon the New Testament Bible. Did not Jesus tell the wealthy young man the only way to follow him and gain heaven was to give away his great wealth to the poor? In other words, redistribution of personal wealth to those with great need from those with great riches.
Did not Jesus tell the wealthy young man the only way to follow him and gain heaven was to give away his great wealth to the poor?
How does that justify the federal government determining how much each person gets to keep. and enforcing that decision at the point of a gun (euphemistically speaking)?
.
Where did I imply this?
As an aside, it is my opinion that any of the tales contained within the bible are just the result of innate human morality.
excellent comment Dennis
How so?
I have noticed that the same people who think their interpretation of religion should be part of the discussiom about marriage, reproduction, divorce, “values” etc in the civic sphere , etc think it has no place in the discussion of sharing the resources we have all been given by God and our ancestors both. The thing many conservatives fail to acknowledge is that for example the water infrastructure that was built for all and raises the common denominator of life and sanitation makes it a better safer world for all. If that wa available inky to the wealthy few the wealthy few would be locked in gated cities that would really be prisons they would be forced to stay in to avoid disease and crime and poverty. They fail to admit that we all build off the generosity of previous generations. And we all benefit by it. If you had a free education or drive on our roads or enjoy a shower in the morning or enjoy safe food realize it is because liberals and conservatives worked together in past generations to do what was right and what was smart. If the extremely wealthy paid their fair share the rest of us would not have to pay so much.
Agreed but there is a difference between doing it voluntarily and being forced by the government. When you hand is forced against your will, people fight back.
Okay, I have to ask. What exactly is meant by fair share? And whom do you recommend decide what a fair share is? Is it fair to want to take 91% of what someone earns as Matt suggests? Is it fair to take 15% as a minimum tax rate from the lowest earners? What exactly is fair and who determines it since my idea of fair may vary greatly from yours? And finally, where do you come up with the statement that conservatives fail to acknowledge… Statements like that with absolutely no basis in fact are ridiculous. Thats no different then saying many liberals fail to acknowledge that the value of hard work while constantly looking for a handout from others.
Dennis, the justification resides in the fact that without government intervention, it will not happen! Nobody can imagine how much more than the half-hearted charity of the rich is needed to effect social health. The rich could not be depended upon even to provide for national defense. They certainly detest national health care! They clearly abhor the elderly, the poor, the sick, the young, the women and the sexually intermediate folks; in fact they seem to hate everyone but other, angry old white men.
What everyone here has overlooked is the immense wisdom propounded by Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and instead you wrongly hassle Matt for a few things he wrote that don’t match your notions of correct provenance, when in fact Marx, atheist that he was (as Matter discovers for us) endorsed the Jesuarian social ethic. Not that I put any stock whatsoever in biblical allusions; there is plenty of basis in fact for human communities having only remained stable via a similar social ethic, the lack or abandonment of which brings injustice, misery, conflict and revolution when proper reform is prevented. Suck it up, you one-eyed, half-brained hard cases.
RMS stated: Suck it up, you one-eyed, half-brained hard cases.
And that folks is Shelbyesque at his most mediocre. Robert, your at that point in life where buying green bananas is a risky investment. Save it for the coffee house.
your = you’re
Robert Shelby you seem to blame the rich/high income for everything. Have you ever walked the steps as a rich/high income person? The answer is no. You have no idea how or what they contribute to all the causes. So how could you possible make statements like that when you have no clue and at the same time go to your name calling tactics.
TP, I think you missed the point of that passage completely. It had nothing to do with the rich mans wealth or possessions. It was not about taking his wealth and redistributing it. It was a matter of the heart. The rich man loved his “Stuff” so much that it was more important to him than anything else. That was the point.
Matt’s assertions, although they seem admirable, just don’t work. Those ideologies remove any incentive for innovation or pursuit of excellence. What you end up with is a mediocre society that will eventually collapse under it’s own entitlement pursuits.
There are plenty of reasons why you can not just walk into any other country and decide you want to be a citizen there. Nor should we have open borders, security for starters is but one of many.
JLB – My only point was that the Jebus was a Socialist, as well as a liberal.
“The rich man loved his “Stuff” so much that it was more important to him than anything else.” The American Dream!
How do you know he was a socialist? Do he say so some where that I have missed. Did he say take income from others agains their will and give it to others who are unwilling to contribute to society? I fail to find any reference to that in the Bible.
No wonder you hate socialism if you think that’s how it works.
OK, I’ll bite. Explain to me how it is different than that?
There is no “against their will.”
There is no “against their will.”
That is the best laugh I have had all day, thanks!
It’s important to understand that in countries where socialism works, for example in Europe, they have subdued (if not completely eliminated) their backward elements, people like you Dennis, and the self-destructive impulses they bring with them. This comes from centuries of learning the hard way. We’re not there yet, but we’ll get there, as the volatile know-nothings, people like you Dennis, die out or (har har) come to their senses.
HH Stated: in Europe, they have subdued (if not completely eliminated) … people like you Dennis
So All I need is to be sent to a gulag to see the error of my ways?
How does that rational jibe with your earlier comment: There is no “against their will.”
So you propose to either kill, torture or otherwise force people to see how benevolent the left is.
How Utopian of you.
“So you propose to either kill, torture or otherwise force people to see how benevolent the left is.” Ladies and gentlemen, the current state of tea party comprehension skills. No, Dennis, we’re going to patiently wait for most of the stupidity to die off, and mock and marginalize the rest into utter submission. I see this plan bearing fruit in 50-75 years. Gulags are for right wing fascists and their heroes — though we do have plenty of space in Alaska …
Who’s talking about Utopia? I’m talking about evolution. Do you believe in evolution?
Hank your comment needs some further explanation. Explain the success in the EU. I guess you will include me in your comment on Dennis.
It takes too much time to explain anything to you.
Perhaps you don’t have the correct version.
You people are at a loss for proper words! “Socialism?” Ha. Try “Communitarianism” and the love of ones’ fellow human-beings living together in peaceful accord with mercy, reason and justice toward each other.
RMS Stated: fellow human-beings living together in peaceful accord with mercy, reason and justice toward each other
I’m ready Robert, where does this Nirvana exist?
We are working toward it. Should we stop?
JLB – As an aside, most people who profess a deep love of the bible have never actually fully read the book.
However, they have memorized parts of texts that they can string together to prove the biblical basis for whatever it is they believe in, but they ignore the vast majority of the text.
Like Matt did in his piece.
That is between you and Matt. Although, I have not seen him respond to any of your comments in quite a while.
That is between you and Matt.
No it is not. It is between Matt and the readers. There will be readers who agree with the words quoted and there will be those who understand the context in which the quote was originally used. The author is aiming for an audience of the former, while hoping that the latter remain silent.
There are other possibilities, such as: he is guilty of exactly what you have stated and lacks contextual understanding himself, which is then a disservice to the readers.
An expert on disservice to the readers.
DDL and all, a comment, not attack:
Sometimes the writer is perfectly happy to write what he or she writes without hidden agendas, without countersigned-affidavits of sincerity, or counter-espionage Plans B, C, D, R, and Triple X-7…These are often not term papers in Theology or Philosophy 101A or even NightClass Midterms in Quonset Hut B-12…If they were they would be pages long, no one would read them anyway, and we’d all be acquiring advanced degrees at the University of Phoenix…and not posting them here…I have hundreds of poems I bore and enchant my poetry friends with, but I rarely post them here as it appears inappropriate to the intended level of sharing…pb
Yes it is.
Well I have read it cover to cover several times. Does that help?
What version? Reading and comprehending are different things. Then there is interpretation .
It would appear you are unappeasable. Different versions studied along with commentaries and Strong’s concordance. You?
None. Don’t need to. Never have. Never will.
Matt – I share your sentiments in regard to the securing of the Mexican border. I go in and out of Mexico so frequently that the US has me profiled on some sort of suspect list. I some times sweat through hours of interrogation getting back into my own country. It is also close to impossible to get visas for my Mexican crew when coming up by boat, so I have to leave the chaps off in Ensenada and short hand the bash.
So – your impressions of the social / economics in Mexico are based on an experience you had in a border town – how many decades ago? do you think you might want to get current? If so – I invite you to travel with me down south – spend a little time – find out whats. actually going on.This is a serious offer – if you are interested say yes and I’ll message back with my email. Who knows! you may be inspired to revisit or rearrange your prejudices.
Thanks for writing.
Matt –
In your article above, you mention that while stationed in Texas you were able to see Mexico. Thank you for your service. I assume that you have visited Mexico, but I must ask, “Have you ever been to Mexico?”
Once I was able to spend a week in Mexico City visiting friends. We were taken to cultural sites within the city, drove through the mountains past Popocatépetl, onto Puebla, finally enjoying the pyramids at Teotihuacan. I was struck by the amazing natural beauty and resources of the area as well as the abject poverty. I asked my friend, who had spent a couple of years in Benicia, as well as several years in Texas, why things were so different in Mexico. Why is the border such a line of demarcation? Her answer was the corruption that is so prevalent at all governmental levels in Mexico.
Why do you believe that business is always bad and government is the solution? Why should we open the border and expect that the powers that be in Mexico will miss the poor huddled masses? Maybe they’ll just enjoy more of paradise for themselves.
Here’s an alternative suggestion to an open border. America should begin to purchase Mexican territory and impart the rule of law. We could start with Baja, California. Purchasing the peninsula would reduce the linear border between the US and Mexico. Less fence. Fewer openings for human trafficking. Reduced need for Border Patrol. Prime real estate could be better developed. Industry could flourish. Fewer banditos. Increased US tax revenue.
What say you?
Interesting, Tom. But, it’s too sensible. It could never pass Congress. Also, open borders are appealing but highly idealistic. Maybe fraught with too many problems to work. Many objections from the NIMBYs.
Jesus did not say it was destined that we should give the resources of our labor our common land or are intellectual property to the true freeloaders–that portion of the populace that thinks the roads water, infrastructure, police, fire, schools and the innovation and commerce they make possible –are theirs for the taking—those who are super wealthy by the fruits of our ancestors labor and our innovations but feel no need to put their hand out to help us up that ladder and in fact are so intimidated by us or so greedy that they don’t even care if we die of a saveable illness or can’t get an education if it makes them a few hundred dollars wealthier. All wealthy people are not like that. And many firms pay handsomely. I am not referring to the,–and guess what the tax code can reward that. But the ones who are wealthy due to opportunities hey they cut for others (Reagan had a scholarship but cut financial aid to college students) and who are puppeteers to the current far right—are the true freeloaders in this equation. Think of the prosperity of the 50s and 60s. The wealthy paid their share of taxes and it caused the infrastructure to grow , many of us to get a college degree we repaid with our taxes happily—and America prospered and the wealthiest did too. Why on earth would anyone making less than 10 million a year be defending policies that let the super rich continue to get off scot free? You’d think they would be so ashamed they’d go away. But instead they try to blame the immigrant the person on food stamps for the Economic hardships their own greediness caused. And that’s why Jesus admonished them —not to impoverish themselves—- but at least to share . And since the super rich prefer and profit from our infrastructure more than anyone their refusal to pay their fair share is pathological and must be enforced if we are not to see this society our grandparents and ancestors fought for and formed for all disintegrate and fall into decay . They prOject their lack of responsibility into the poorest people but don’t kid yourself we are part of that scorned 47% we who have worked every day of our out lives. This tea party stuff is trying to divide us from our allies so that the super rich can steal from all of us as they did in 1929 and again in 2008. Wake up and hold the right people accountable. Not that poor dude who can’t afford cheese. It’s the greedy rich guys. Not all of them. Too many of them. And the greedy ones project their shame on to the poor. Think about it. Watch a few Andy Griffith shows! . Civics .charity. Prosperity for all. Sigh.
The top 2% of wage earners in America pay 73% of the total tax burden. How is that not fair? If the bottom 47% are not paying anything, that leave 51% of the wage earners paying 37% of the burden. How are those 2% free loaders when they are paying the greater majority for EVERYONE! And I ask you when was the last time you go a job from a poor person. News flash, rich people create businesses and businesses hire and pay people.
JLB do you actually think the liberals will unstand what you just said. Be prepared, here they come. Very good JLB.
JLB said: The top 2% of wage earners in America pay 73% of the total tax burden, How is that not fair?
It seems that today “fair” is no longer defined by how much of the total is being paid by whom, but rather how much more can be confiscated from those who have more than is deemed to be acceptable.
Over the last 30 years, changes to tax laws have done nothing but benefit the wealthy. Mitt Romney pays 12% in income taxes. And you, apparently, think it should be lower. Only the wealthy get tax loopholes. Who is writing the tax laws? The wealthy. Who is lobbying Congress? The wealthy. The poor have no lobbyists. It’s amazing that you gripe about tax law. The game is rigged in favor of the wealthy. The wealthy get wealthier and wealthier while the middle class remains stagnant and the poor get poorer. Income inequality has never been greater, yet you think the disparity should be even greater. Amazing.
Every tax payer gets a subsidy. Try family and idemized deductions.. A family of four making say 75k a year right up front gets close to 30k. the advantage is for sure for the low income and middleclass. The problem with the low income folks is that the job market has changerd in the last thirty yuears and they were not skilled to take advantage of the change. So now they are in the low income marked. It has nothing at all to do with the rich get richer. It has more to do with the low income putting themselves in a position where they have no transferable skills. I will admit that problem must be fixed. A bigger problem is payroll taxes. That must be fixed so the low income have more money in their pockets. No cap on s/s with a decling rate at say over 500k and a starting deduction rate of say 30k. That way you help the poor, low income and middleclass at once. We must also do away with grants. Who gets hurt the same folks. Grant cause taxes to go up and tolls and other fees rise. Again who gets hurt, the same folks. It has never been about the rich it has always been about the way we fund social programs and fees etc. It is an easy fix. This is coming from a conservative who believes it is our duty to help the needy. But at the same time there must be a desire to help themselves.
And you, apparently, think it should be lower. — I have never put forward that argument or made a statement to that effect.
Mitt Romney pays 12% in income taxes
Sorry, your numbers are wrong and since you did not provide a source I won’t either.
But here are the numbers:
Romney paid 32.4% on his earned income.
and 15.% on his capitol gains.
You’re referring only to income taxes. You conveniently omit all other taxes, including sales tax, which is horribly regressive.
And, ‘when was the last time you got a job from a poor person?’. When those poor people have a bit more money, they buy things, creating greater demand, creating more jobs. There are no jobs if no one can afford to buy anything. Demand creates jobs…not your so-called ‘job creators’. Economics 101.
It appears that all the backers of Matt Talbot do not think America is the best place to live. We are almost as big as Europe and I do believe we are doing much better. Open borders as it stands now are not good. I do believe in investing in Mexico so the chance that folks will want to come to America will some day go away. Could it be they are not proud of their country? I do not know. Or is it we love our country but we will take Americas opportunities for a better life. Once here they do not want to return to Mexico in droves. Very interesting why the Mexican border is so heavily crossed. By the way red states give more to charity. Could I conclude Republicans care more? For sure Republicans care more than the New England states which in most cases are blue states and give about half as much. Very strange these liberals they only want the Conservatives to give so they can keep their money. Just an observation that will be doubted by the Liberals. So what, I still think America is the best country and we are doing just fine. Are any of you liberals leaving anytime soon?
Complacency is the enemy of progress.
Denmark named happiest country in the world!
http://www.icenews.is/2013/09/20/denmark-named-happiest-country-in-the-world/
That is true but at the same time take A close look at their population numbers. I think we might just as well say that the Dakotas and Texas are also the happiest places in the world.
When did the Dakotas or Texas become countries?
Thomas I believe I said places. You talk about countries I talk about places.
Then a population comparison would seem to be irrelevant.
BTW – The factors considered in the article are wealth, political freedom, job security and government corruption.
Thomas take a good lack at the demographics. Then I do believe we might be able to talk.
Communicate your point.
No, because the states in America act and are run by state governments. So the factors do apply.
Denmark:
Effective tax rate on $100,000 is 42% (4th highest in world)
Effective tax rate on $300,000 is 51.5% (also # 4)
Price to fill a 15 gallon tank of gas: $140.00
Hey but college is free!
What part of “The happiest country in the world” don’t you understand?
So it appears we can conclude that money does buy happiness, as long as the fed has enough money to do the shopping.
“What part of “The happiest country in the world” don’t you understand?”
Apparently he doesn’t understand any of it.
“money does buy happiness” On the contrary. Money is not required for happiness.
http://bit.ly/16m6eRw
Environmentalpro: Nice touch, that web link was a nice breath of fresh air!…See more at http://www.peterbray.org/pedro
Rosebud
I comprehend just fine, some shared information is an old man’s way of passing time in trivial pursuits at the end of his passage through the forest. Good luck on your travels. Take a science class sometime. pb
Honestly, I did not post this to offend anyone. What’s to argue?
who is arguing?
I believe you did not try to offend anyone. I just look at the reporting and try to see where it may fit else where if at all. It can be difficult to compare things without the full makeup of the country in question. Denmark is small and lacks diversity in many cases. We might even include many areas of population that are happy but are just communities and are governed by a much larger area. If the state of Californis was in total a very wealthy state not just certain areas it could well be the happiest place in the world. I understood what the article was about. But will not be moving to any of those places.