Pilot LTEs: 5 Anti-Nye, 1 Pro-Nye
Most of the Letters to the Editor (LTEs) in today’s Virginian-Pilot are about health care and most expressing various degrees of disappointment over Rep. Glenn Nye’s “No” vote on the health care reform bill. Where are all the “atta boys” Nye was counting on?
Anti-Nye:
Man without a home
No place for Nye
No change from Drake
Democrat in name only
Politics Inc.
Pro-Nye:
Courageous vote
Join us on Facebook.
Follow us on Twitter.
March 23rd, 2010 at 5:50 pm
Darn, I missed a chance to voice support for Glenn.
OK, OK, since I too wished he voted for it (I am in favor of LIMITED socialized health care) I might not have been motivated to say anything on that thread.
But on this thread I am motivated. While Glenn Nye does not always vote my way, I think he serves me better then anyone who stands a chance to get elected in his place. As a moderate, I am used to never getting everything I want I look in dismay as liberal/progressives throw a temper tantrum because they do not get everything they want either.
But I just wonder how much favorable consideration Glenn Nye is motivated to give to those members of the Democratic Party who almost seem to be trying to run him out of office. Seems to me that Glenn Nye is the Democratic Party’s best hopes of keeping this seat. If he manages to maintain the seat could you imagine that he might be more open to voices that supported him then those who opposed him? At times, since he was elected, I have witnessed more support for Glenn on Bearing Drift then I have witnessed here.
I am hopeful that if Glenn is victorious in his reelection bid he remains open to hearing the voices of liberals even though these voices seemed to have turned against him.
March 24th, 2010 at 4:30 am
As I have said elsewhere previously, I agree with you and hope Nye is reelected.
I doubt any readers of Bearing Drift will vote for Nye, and I fear he has alienated his Democratic base.
March 24th, 2010 at 6:15 am
I can’t support or vote for him… I’m going to have to take a pass on this race.
March 24th, 2010 at 8:20 am
Even though Glenn Nye is the incumbent, he is going to face an extremely tough election race. He is going to need every vote possible if he is going to be victorious. Sitting this race out should not be an option. Failure to vote is empowering his opponent. Failure to vote is only half as bad as casting your vote the other way.
The political pundits are predicting a bloodbath for Democratic candidates next election cycle. It is my hope that Glenn Nye will be capable of weathering the gathering storm. If he is going to be successful, he needs the votes of all who voted for him last time. If he has not been good enough for you think about this; would you have been more satisfied if Thelma had won instead? Thelma is not going to be running next time, but Glenn’s opponent is apt to be someone acceptable to the Tea Party movement. Will you be better served by having such a voice, someone the Tea Party likes, representing you in the House of Representatives instead of sending Glenn back up in there to represent us?
My vote is going for Glenn Nye. I do not always agree with him, but I am not going to kick him out of my own Coffee Party movement.
By the way… on NPR about a week or so after I mentioned starting a Coffee Party movement I heard where someone else must have come up with the same idea, with the same name, at about the same time or probably earlier. From what I have heard, I think I can support the efforts of this larger movement. However I reserve the right to further narrow the identification of my personal efforts. I am going to describe my own efforts as the Beer Party subsection of the greater Coffee Party movement. I like my coffee, but I like my beer too. While I am willing to sign on to the broad efforts of the national Coffee Party movement, I reserve the right to disagree with the specifics.
March 24th, 2010 at 11:37 am
Sorry but Nye ran on the “change bandwagon” so he has a responcibility to hold up his end. He didn’t so I’ll not support him. Yes I know a GOP person will win this November, but I’ll work hard to replace that person in the next go around.
March 25th, 2010 at 6:23 am
William,
Well if you do not see how keeping an incumbent in office is easier then trying to run an incumbent out of office then I guess it is pointless to continue the conversation.
Glenn Nye might not be perfect in many Democrats eyes, but he is better then the one he replaced and he is better then anyone lining up to replace him. Glenn serves and runs in a district that is still rather conservative. With Glenn winning reelection you would have someone still serving that would caucus with the Democrats. If Glenn fails and next time you nominate somebody else to run against the now incumbent Republican you are certain to come up short.
Look how difficult it was to finally get a Democrat to represent us. Glenn Nye was successful in running Thelma out of office but look back at just how close the race was! Thelma was a conservative extremist but still she appealed to enough voters that the extremist that runs against Glenn will automatically have many votes.
The Republican candidate will be someone acceptable to the Tea Party. Failure to back and vote for Glenn Nye is akin to empowering the Tea Party Movement. Extremism is not a virtue and moderation should win out over extremism.
March 25th, 2010 at 6:41 am
I agree with Little David. Nye may be the best we can do in this district. Half a loaf is better than none.
March 25th, 2010 at 10:13 am
What makes you all think that Glenn Nye wouldn’t be embraced by some members, if not a majority, of the Tea Party movement? His kind of rational thinking, anything but politically-motivated, is pretty close to the Tea Party platform. A true Democrat in the mold of JFK would get a lot of support from the Tea Party. Nye is a long shot to keep his seat in the political climate that will come in the next 8 months, and considering the stable of Republicans lining up to contend for the seat.
Seems to me somebody with some intelligence, who wanted Nye to keep his seat, would be publicizing all the reasons why Nye should be attractive to independent voters. Make no mistake, only one or two of the Republican candidates have any love for the Tea Party. But it seems like most of the people here are content to call us “teabaggers” and write us off as unrealistic radicals.
March 27th, 2010 at 5:50 am
Open Minded:
Personally I think Thelma Drake, the former 2nd District Representative whom Glenn replaced would have been more acceptable to members of the Tea Party movement then Glenn would be. While Glenn is fairly moderate, Thelma was in favor of the unfair and mislabeled “Fair Tax” which is one of the reasons I was so motivated to get that gal out of office.
David Campbell:
I noted something interesting coming from the mainstream media. On the MSNBC website appears a piece http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032619/vp=36059256� where the projected budget savings of the plan are questioned.
Since Glenn Nye is a Blue Dog, and fiscal responsibility is one of his major concerns, perhaps he has reasonable justification for why he voted the way he did on the health care bill. The more I hear about the possible long term impacts on the federal deficit I know that at least it is causing some concern for me. The claims the federal medicaid reimbursements to health care providers will be reduced by 21% being unlikely to happen rings true to me. Congress has almost always voted to stop such reductions that were scheduled to take effect in the past. Why should I trust that Congress is going to have the moxie to allow such decreases to take effect now?
March 27th, 2010 at 12:30 pm
All Congress has to go on is the nonpartisan CBO, which says that health reform will reduce the deficit $130 billion the first 10 years, by $1.2 trillion the second 10 years, and even more over the longer term. Here’s how.
The real question is how could a “Blue Dog” deficit hawk vote against it?
March 28th, 2010 at 9:18 am
Well if the Blue Dog knows that the CBO can only go on what Congress promises, even though Congress has a history of not delivering on the promises? I am not going to fault Glenn Nye for interjecting the little bit of the common sense the CBO is not allowed to exercise.
Every time the cuts were supposed to happen in the past, Congress always ended up stopping them. Why should this time be different?
I will not wade into whether the cuts are justified or not, but I will point out these types of cuts have been used to point savings that never ended up materializing.
If it takes a Blue Dog to point this out I think we need more Blue Dogs in Congress.
March 28th, 2010 at 12:40 pm
The CBO can only score what is in the actual language of the legislation, not what opponents imagine might happen.
March 29th, 2010 at 9:18 am
Regarding the supposed cost savings, I’d really like for somebody to tell me where I’m wrong. The proposed tax increases start almost immediately (next year for sure), but the significant cost increases of additional services won’t start until 2014. So we’ve got 10 years of income but only 6 or maybe 7 years of expenses in the CBO score. If that is truly the case, then it worries the heck out of me that the CBO says we’re going to “save” $130 billion. In my personal budget, if I could figure 10 years of earnings and only 7 years of expenses, I’d probably be able to show a “budget surplus” of at least 3 or 4 years of income.
The promises of reductions which LD accurately indicates will most likely never happen will undoubetedly eat up the $1.2 trillion in “savings” that the CBO scored.
And, LD, what do you have against the FairTax? If you’ve figured in the Pre-bate, the plan is that low-income earners would pay no taxes. And, if they shop at second-hand stores (avoid the purchase of new items), the FairTax would result in net income for thrifty shoppers.
March 29th, 2010 at 12:16 pm
Open Minded,
Most analysis that I have seen of the impact of the Fair Tax do not include that low income earners would also lose the benefits of the EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit) under the plan.
It hard to find second hand food available at the Salvation Army showroom.
Someone once debating with me about the Fair Tax claimed that the average American Family, making $43K a year, married with two children, would see a tax decrease. I ran the figures, such a family would face an increase in taxes of over $2K a year even if they only take the standard deduction and do not itemize because they were paying a mortgage instead of paying rent. While what they pay in taxes could be reduced by purchasing second hand goods, the price on such goods would go up as demand increased. The price on second hand goods would follow the normal market laws of supply and demand just like everything else. While they might not be subject to the Fair Tax, the costs of that second hand, stained underwear is going to go up.
I estimate my own taxes would go up, in a good year, by about $5K a year. This past year was a particularly bad one for me, however even without taking any depreciation on my brand new truck this year I ended up getting back more then I paid in estimated federal taxes (no I did not qualify for the EITC). It is hard to improve on a tax burden that is less then zero. Actually I feel guilty for not paying taxes. I think someone as fortunate as me should be contributing.
However I do not want to pay higher taxes to only give the likes of Paris Hilton a tax cut. If my taxes are going to go up I want the proceeds to go towards lessening the deficit, not to give Paris additional money to waste. She has enough money already, thank you very much, and I can find better uses for my money then to give it to her.
March 29th, 2010 at 12:40 pm
David Campbell,
So it is wrong for a citizen to learn from experience? The experience that Congress promises to balance the budget and only in rare instances manages to do so? To learn from the specific example that much of the proposed savings comes from steps Congress has never yet been able to take even though it previously promised it would?
I’m not faulting the CBO analysis. I’m just saying the CBO is so limited in how it analyzes the costs and savings that its analysis should be taken with with a large dose of salt. Take the figures the CBO was forced to use and deduct the savings from reductions to health care providers proposed in Medicare and Medicaid and you are apt to end up with more realistic figures that might hold up in the real world.
March 30th, 2010 at 6:02 am
Open Minded: Where did you pick up that talking point about how the taxes start now and the benefits don’t start until later? It’s not true.
Some benefits begin within the first year. For example, businesses with fewer than 50 employees will get tax credits covering 35% of their health care premiums, a temporary reinsurance program will help offset costs of coverage for companies that provide early retiree health benefits, seniors will get a $250 rebate to help fill the “doughnut hole” in Medicare prescription drug coverage, and the adoption tax credit and assistance exclusion will increase by $1,000.
Taxes are phased in over time along with other benefits. The Medicare payroll tax will increase for individuals earning more than $200,000 and married filing jointly above $250,000 in 2011. The Employer Medicare Part D subsidy deduction will be eliminated in 2013. The fees for the employer and individual mandates don’t begin until 2014 (the same year the health insurance exchanges begin). The excise tax on high-cost “Cadillac” plans doesn’t begin until 2018.
The savings aren’t short term based on taxes now, benefits later. The CBO estimates that health reform will reduce the deficit by $130 billion the first 10 years, by $1.2 trillion the second 10 years, and even more over the longer term. Rep. Nye voted against reducing the deficit.
LittleDavid: The savings identified by the CBO come from what is in legislation that has already passed, not “promises” of future Congressional action. I linked to an explanation of the savings previously, but here it is again.
What we are left with is the detailed analysis of the CBO versus vague suspicions about government.
March 30th, 2010 at 12:33 pm
David Campbell,
These are not vague suspicions but the proven track record of Congress. Congress has passed cuts to health care providers through government programs in the past and when the time comes around for them to go into effect they postpone them until next year, and the year following, and then the year after that. They did just that earlier this year if I am not mistaken just like they did last year, and the year before and the year before that and…
The “promise” is that this time they mean it and they will not just do like they have always been doing.
March 30th, 2010 at 5:40 pm
The other Great Society programs, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid all cost more than was projected. These programs just keep growing, they can’t even cut the corruption by any signficant amounts and they admit there is widespread fraud. Now Dems in Congress are upset that corporations are projecting their losses due to the healthcare bill and questioning the accounting methods, like Congress didn’t know that they were going to increase costs for corporations and subsequently consumers. Corporations actually have to follow standardized accounting practices. The accounting done by Congress would be illegal for these corporations, so there is irony here.
March 30th, 2010 at 6:14 pm
LD,
Did those analysis of the Fair Tax include Social Security Taxes and Medicare Taxes, which would also be gone? Additionally, corporate taxes would be gone, and therefore would not be passed down to consumers. While I can’t say there is a consensus (at least not until Al Gore is on board), quite a few bright economists and accountants disagree with you. The initial group who developed the Fair Tax were supposedly non-partisan and they were paid to develop the best tax system for America. They were not given guidance on what form it should take. I would pay more under the Fair Tax, but I am okay with that since I shouldn’t get a free (not quite free with payroll taxes, but close) ride because I have a bunch of children and a couple of houses. Also, the Fair Tax really is fair and would eliminate vote buying via tax code changes.
March 31st, 2010 at 4:13 am
kingsmoothie,
Yes the analysis did take into account Social Security Taxes and Medicare Taxes.
I am glad you do not expect a free ride. I think my taxes should go up as well (although I will admit that I currently take advantage of every legal method I can to lessen my tax bill) to help lessen the budget deficit. However I think any increase in taxes should be done the American Way, which is through a progressive tax system.
The Fair Tax is not a progressive tax system. Sure, it does include the prebate which provides some protections for the lower class, however the progressivity disappears once you get beyond the lower class. In fact it is apt to turn the other direction. Someone with a modest income is apt to spend 100% of their income to keep a roof over their family’s heads and food on the table along with a few luxuries. Bill Gates only needs to spend a small portion of his income on his needs.
Here is another thought. Under the Fair Tax, state and local governments would also have to pay the tax. So if state and local governments wanted to continue to provide the same services that they currently provide, they would have to raise their own taxes just to stay even.
While “quite a few bright economists and accountants disagree” with me, I do not think they are in majority (although perhaps there is a majority of those who are in the pocket of those who would benefit most from the Fair Tax). George Dubyah Bush, while he was President, put together a panel to look at the idea. The panel recommended against it.
March 31st, 2010 at 7:51 am
“any increase in taxes should be done the American Way, which is through a progressive tax system”. How. Unbelievably. Depressing. I’m pretty confident “a heavy progressive or graduated income tax” is one of the tenets of Communism.
LD, I agree with you on some things, but on this you couldn’t be more wrong. I don’t know what’s more troubling, the statement you wrote or the very fact that politicians have been successful in convincing a good part of Americans that the more affluent citizens should be required to pay “their fair share”. What ever happened to equality? How did “your fair share” become tied to income? Why not overall wealth? Why is it based on income instead of consumption? Why should the 67,999th dollar I earn be taxed at 15% but the 68,001st dollar gets taxed at 25%? Why should you get a benefit if you choose to buy a house and finance it through a mortgage? The American income tax code is the most convoluted system of collecting revenue precisely because it consolidates significant power to the federal government.
The reason politicians and those who advise them are against the FairTax is because it takes power away from the established power brokers (think about it – if a “tax policy advisor” advised his elected official boss that the FairTax is the way to go, that “tax policy advisor” just worked himself out of a job). The power to tax is the power to influence choices. If the FairTax were enacted, the politicians would lose their ability to provide favorable treatment to their supporters through the redistribution of wealth.
What’s more, the FairTax would put the level of taxation directly into the hands of the individual citizens. I’m middle class, but I could choose to buy used stuff or no stuff at all, and I would probably come very close to paying zero taxes. Rich and poor could do likewise. On the other hand, When Bill Gates decided he needed a new ride, he’d pay the appropriate consumption tax on that new Mercedes or whatever. Similarly for the unsavory businessman (use your imagination) who has successfully hidden all his income from the government, yet he wants to look good in some new duds. There’s consumption tax revenue that the feds would never get their hands on otherwise.
The opposition to the FairTax is either (1) politically-based, to keep the power structure where it is, or (2) rooted in misunderstanding. Those who understand the FairTax and have no stake in the power brokering of the income tax code are almost always in favor of it.
March 31st, 2010 at 8:16 am
Without a progressive tax code, wealth would steadily become accumulated with the fortunate few. This is not the idea of America I stand behind.
I support withdrawing the ties on business in order to provide the jobs for American citizens. I do not support ideas that would further concentrate wealth.
Lest there be a misunderstanding, I support the Estate (Death) tax as the most beautiful tax there is.
March 31st, 2010 at 8:44 am
LD – Five sentences, five misfires.
I do not accept your premise that “wealth would steadily become accumulated with the fortunate few,” and I defy you to produce any evidence to back that up. The progressive income tax is a tool used by government to redistribute wealth and secure support among voting constituencies.
The America you stand behind is one that would steal by means of taxation, stifiling (some would say punishing) ingenuity and productivity, and deliver the goods to those who didn’t earn it?
You’d rather manipulate the already over-complicated tax code to the benefit of businesses, who could then hire employees who would have to pay higher taxes because individuals would be be forced to shoulder more of the load? Would you be the one who determines which kinds of businesses should be deemed “desirable” and thus deverve more favorable tax treatement?
The iPod was an idea that further concentrated wealth into Steve Jobs’s pockets. Are you against that as well? Or are you just waiting for Steve to die so the government can confiscate half of his wealth ON WHICH HE HAS ALREADY PAID INCOME TAXES?
The estate tax is one where the taxed party has little ability to complain or, for that matter, vote in the future. I understand why it is so beautiful to you.
March 31st, 2010 at 3:42 pm
Open minded,
Just remember that Steve Jobs only has one vote. Those less fortunate have many votes.
Actually I lean towards lessening the tax burden on all business within the boundaries of our nation. Each business might still have to pay environmental impact fees to clean up what they dirty, but there should be no additional taxes on them while they provide jobs for American citizens.
Beyond that, I am most strongly in favor of the American Way. A progressive tax code that taxes the poor most leniently and the richest most heavily.
March 31st, 2010 at 5:31 pm
I’m not sure how a post on Rep. Nye’s vote on health reform morphed into a debate on the estate tax. I’ve been resisting wading in, but here goes…
Open Minded has a number of “misfires” himself:
The government is not some external entity that “steals” our money. The government is composed of our democratically-elected representatives. If they do not represent us, they can be voted out of office. If you want to eliminate the estate tax, campaign on that issue and see if you can get elected.
It is true, as LittleDavid said, that “Steve Jobs only has one vote.” On the other hand, he can afford to buy a lot more access and political influence than you or I. Free speech isn’t free, it’s expensive. Money is power. A concentration of wealth = a concentration of power.
Steve Jobs somehow managed to accumulate his wealth under the current tax structure. It did not seem to “stifle his ingenuity and productivity.” (Incidentally, Bill Gates, Sr. has lobbied against repeal of the estate tax.)
The estate tax is on the heirs, not the deceased, and it is mostly on assets that have never been subject to any taxes.
March 31st, 2010 at 5:35 pm
I found something I wrote on the estate tax way back in 2002. Some of the figures may have changed, but I don’t have the time to do all the research again and it has a lot more facts than Open Minded will ever come up with:
“Throughout the history of this great country, many prominent Americans have been concerned about the threat to our democracy of extreme concentrations of inherited wealth. For that reason, the estate tax has been in place in one form or another since the very beginning. The estate tax has existed in its current form since 1916.
Republican President Teddy Roosevelt, proposing the creation of the federal estate tax said: “The man of great wealth owes a peculiar obligation to the State because he derives special advantages from the mere existence of government” (State of the Union, 1906). “Most great civilized countries have an income tax and an inheritance tax. In my judgment both should be part of our system of federal taxation.” Such taxation should “be aimed merely at the inheritance or transmission in their entirety of those fortunes swollen beyond all healthy limits” (June 1907).
Wealthy steel magnate Andrew Carnegie also supported the creation of the estate tax, saying that “the parent who leaves his son enormous wealth generally deadens the talents and energies of the son, and leads him to lead a less useful and less worthy life than he otherwise would.”
As you know:
• Only estates worth more than $1 million ($2 million for couples), and rising to $3.5 million ($7 million for couples) by 2009, are even subject to the estate tax.
• The estate tax only affects only the top 2% richest Americans who die each year, which was about 50,000 estates in 1999 (before the Bush tax cuts). About 40% of those taxable estates were worth $1 million or less and were already exempt under the 2001 law. The $3.5 million exemption would protect another 50%. Even with inflation, only 10-15% of taxable estates (less than 1% of all estates) would benefit from complete repeal.
• More than half the estate taxes paid in 1999 were collected from a mere 3,300 largest estates in excess of $5 million, the wealthiest 0.1% of the population.
• Repealing the estate tax would provide a $16.5 billion tax cut to just 3,200 families. About 450 of them would reap a windfall of $8 billion.
• For example: heirs of corporate executives like Gary Winnick (Global Crossing; $734 million), L. Dennis Kozlowski (Tyco International; $300 million), and Kenneth L. Lay (Enron; $119 million) would receive a tax break of $574 million between the three of them.
• Congressman Henry Waxman (D-California) pointed out that heirs of just 10 Bush cabinet officials would receive tax breaks of between $98.1 million to $301.6 million.
Your main point that the tax “has caused countless small businesses, farms, and ranches to disappear” is, to put it politely, misleading.
• The New York Times conducted an investigation in Iowa and could not find a single example of the estate tax harming family farmers.
• The reason is that small business owners and farmers already get the benefits of all sorts of special rules to artificially reduce the taxable values of their assets and give them years to pay any estate tax that is actually due.
• Small business owners only account for about 9% of estate tax returns.
• Farmers only account for about 12% of taxable estates, with the estate tax representing less than 2% of the value of those estates.
• The USDA’s Economic Research Service recently reported that the average farm household net worth ranged from $576,400 for small farms to $1.5 million for very large family farms, so most family farms are not even subject to the estate tax at the $1 million exemption. The Democratic proposal for reform would exempt the rest.
Your statement that “you are taxed once while you are alive, and you are taxed again when you pass away” is also misleading. Most of the taxed assets are in the form of accumulated stocks and bonds that have never been subject to capital gains taxes.
The cost of repealing the estate tax would be staggering:
• Permanently repealing the estate tax would cost $56 billion the first year in 2012. That’s equivalent to the cost of running the Departments of Commerce, Education, Interior, and EPA combined, or the total amount spent by the federal government for education, training, employment, and social service programs.
• Repeal would cost a total of $800 billion from 2012 through 2021.
• State budgets will also lose more than $6.5 billion a year when state-linked revenue is eliminated in 2005.
Either government programs will need to be eliminated or taxes will need to be raised on the rest of us to make up the shortfall. Your letter neglected to mention which of these alternatives you are advocating.
Charities would also suffer. Charitable contributions and foundations that are currently used to avoid the estate tax generated $15 billion for charity in 1999, about 8% of total charitable giving. Repealing the estate tax would likely reduce charitable bequests by an estimated $5-6 billion a year. That will make Republican plans to shift responsibility for social programs from government to charitable organizations a bit more difficult.
There is, in fact, broad public support for the estate tax:
• A Greenberg/Quinlan/Rosner poll in May found that voters would prefer a tax cut targeted toward low and moderate income Americans by a 6-1 margin and that they favor the Democratic reform proposal over repeal by a 58-37 margin.
• A coalition of wealthy Americans called Responsible Wealth has lobbied in favor of the estate tax. William H. Gates, Sr., Steven C. Rockefeller, David Rockefeller, Jr., George Soros, Ted Turner, and more than 1,100 business leaders, investors, and small business owners signed a letter to Congress, stating: “We believe that permanent repeal of the estate tax would be bad for our democracy, our economy, and our society. Repealing the estate tax, a constructive part of our tax structure for 85 years, would leave an unfortunate legacy for America’s future generations.”
• Even Business Week (hardly a leftist publication) has editorialized against permanent repeal of the estate tax.
When the Senate defeated the permanent repeal of the estate tax, Senator Phil Gramm (R-Enron) angrily threw down the gauntlet, predicting the vote would be a “defining issue” in the choice between Democrats and Republicans in November. “We will have a referendum on the death tax on election day,” he vowed.
We certainly hope so. If the 2% of Americans who are ever likely to be affected by the estate tax vote for Republicans, and the other 98% of us vote for Democrats, Republicans will lose in a landslide.”
April 2nd, 2010 at 7:01 am
DC – It must be very rewarding to footnote yourself. You certainly did provide more information than I could ever hope to amass, so I’ll just let my objection stand at one thing you wrote above.
You quote Teddy Roosevelt above who disdains “fortunes swollen beyond all healthy limits”. Can you tell me what is even remotely American about that statement? You don’t have to admit it publicly, but be honest with yourself. It is embarrassing that something like that passed the lips of an American, not to mantion a Republican American President.
April 2nd, 2010 at 7:14 am
I suggest that you go to Mount Rushmore and tell Teddy Roosevelt to his face that he is un-American.
Since you focused on that quote, here is another one just for you:
Another socialist!
April 2nd, 2010 at 8:16 am
Opened Minded,
Evidently you stand against the American Way which is a progressive tax system. Even Ronald Reagan raised the fuel tax. I guess even Ronald Reagan was a socialist?
April 2nd, 2010 at 10:11 am
DC – Let’s stick with the Teddy quotes: “The gravest wrong upon his country is inflicted by that man, whatever his station, who seeks to make his countrymen divide primarily in the line that separates class from class, occupation from occupation, men of more wealth from men of less wealth”. I didn’t say TR was un-American (somehow I think you know that), but some of the things he said were anathema to the American spirit.
LD – Keep saying that a progressive tax system is “the American Way”. That doesn’t make it so. I’ll admit that is the system which is currently being enforced, but I submit that it can still be un-American.
Were we living in 1850, would you have proclaimed that slavery was “the American Way”? How about prohibition in 1925?
April 2nd, 2010 at 12:08 pm
Open Minded: I’ll concede that you did not literally call President Teddy Roosevelt “un-American.” What you did was question whether his statement was “even remotely American.” Huge difference!
Coincidentally, a new Quinnipiac University poll found that 60% of Americans think raising income taxes on households making more than $250,000 should be a main tenet of the government’s efforts to tame the deficit. More than 70% (including 56% of Republicans) say those making more than $1 million should pay more. It is clear that “real Americans” (unlike your fringe group of “true Americans”) believe taxes should be more progressive, not less progressive.
You are certainly free to claim that your ideology is somehow more American than that of most Americans, but “that doesn’t make it so.”
Slavery and prohibition are red herrings (“somehow I think you know that”). The end of slavery and the beginning of progressive taxation were both landmarks of progress toward a more just American society.
April 2nd, 2010 at 7:10 pm
I’m going to defend the American Way as I see it. In a progressive tax system, the middle class pays at least some and I see all too many Americans in the middle class thinking they should pay nothing and we should soak the rich. I am in favor of the wealthy paying more at a higher rate, however I am against these rates becoming confiscatory.
Any tyranny of the majority against the minority is still tyranny. Even one of the Beatles penned a song about the injustice of tax rates on the wealthy when they become absurdly high. When someone is making a lot of money, others are finding employment in the money making. There should still be rewards for hard work paying off like it should.
Progressive in my mind means the poor pay little or nothing, the middle class pays some, and the wealthy pay more. It does not mean we only tax the wealthy; the middle class should be paying its fair share too.
Now that is the American Way as I see it. Perhaps Open Minded should consider moving to Russia or Iraq if he believes that ardently in a flat or “Fair” tax, I hear they have flat taxes in both of those places. Personally I am going to stick with America and continue to defend what I consider to be the American Way, which is a progressive tax system.
April 3rd, 2010 at 1:03 pm
Kill us with the poll numbers, David. Since less than 5% of the population exceeds $250,000 in annual income, I’m surprised the number of Americans who want to tax the hell out of that income bracket isn’t a bunch higher than 60%. In a related story, Open Minded just conducted a poll of everyone in the country and found that 83% of all Americans agree with the statement “the lowest 83% of income earners shouldn’t pay any taxes.” A 60% or an 83% or a 99% majority doesn’t make it right.
Slavery and prohibition honestly weren’t intended as red herrings, I was actually interested in how LD was qualifying “the American way”. I was genuinely trying to find out if he meant the rule of the day, or if his “American way” was tied to the uniquely American principles of freedom, liberty, and equality.
As a side note, your comments about my “fringe true Americans” and LD’s comments about me moving to Russia or Iraq detract substantially from this otherwise healthy discussion. It also indicates weakness in your argument. I’ll admit I have written some snarky things on this page, but personal attacks are inappropriate within a meaningful disagreement.
April 3rd, 2010 at 3:22 pm
Open Minded: Read what you have written here. Much of your argument boils down to “anyone who disagrees with me isn’t a true American.” That seems to me a personal attack.
The fact remains that a large majority of real Americans (even some of the richest Americans I cited above) support progressive taxation. Majority rules! It’s called democracy. What is your alternative? Only allow white male landowners to vote, as it was in the time of the Founding Fathers? Should we be governed by an elite ruling class of “true Americans” such as yourself?
Self-interest is the cornerstone of the free market economy that you espouse. Do you have taxable income in excess of $250,000? If not, why are you so adamant defending the economic interests of people you don’t even know?
The Bush tax cuts were deliberately written with an expiration date to hide the devastating long term fiscal impact. They have already contributed to the largest deficit in history. If they were allowed to expire on schedule for those with taxable income in excess of $250,000 (leaving the middle class tax cuts in place), the marginal tax cuts would revert to where they were under President Reagan (who was, apparently, a socialist).
April 4th, 2010 at 3:41 am
Open Minded,
Since the income tax was first implemented by Abraham Lincoln to fund the Civil War it has been progressive in nature. I believe I am correct in saying that, under Lincoln, only the wealthiest paid the tax.
My comment about your moving to Russia or Iraq was motivated by my experiences as I grew up as a child. Back then, the refrain went “America, Love it or Leave It” which was often chanted by the right at the hippies and flower children who desired change in our nation. If you are at least as old as I am, surely you remember how often that phrase appeared on automobile bumper stickers.
I think my comment about moving to Russia is not more inappropriate then a member of the Tea Party Movement shouting “No Change Necessary” in response to Obama’s agenda of change. I think it is fittingly appropriate that one of the examples I gave of where you can move to if you desire a flat tax is Russia, the formerly communist nation.
David Campbell,
Actually, the top marginal income tax rate when Reagan left office was 28% although there was a sandwich of income subject to 33% with income above that level reverting back to 28%. If the George Dubyah Bush rates are allowed to expire the rate would return to 39.6% which was implemented under George H. W. Bush. In passing I will note that at times the top marginal rate was as high as 94% in our nations history. 39.6% would still be quite low when compared to rates present from 1932 on into the eighties.
April 5th, 2010 at 5:43 am
LD – The flat tax and the FairTax are two significantly different animals. That you would suggest I move to a country with a flat tax bacause I am in favor of the FairTax makes my point (above, in #21) that you simply don’t understand the issue.
DC – You’ve finally told me all I need to know about you, that you think I can’t (or shouldn’t) defend a principle which applies to $250k earners if I’m not one myself. This defies common sense. Even before I was a gun owner I supported gun rights. Even though I don’t have a vagina I’m pro-choice. I donate to Special Olympics even though I don’t have a developmental disability. I’m curious now, do you have any opionions about issues that don’t affect you personally? I get the idea you don’t need the health care reform bill to afford a visit to your doctor, but you sure spent cyber miles on this page advocating for that legislation.
April 5th, 2010 at 5:51 am
Open Minded,
Perhaps I owe you an apology. Many people who are in favor of the Fair Tax are also in favor of a flat tax; they’d settle for whichever of the two they could get. From some of your comments, I assumed you fell into that category, however I guess I am then guilty of making that assumption.
Perhaps you can explain to me the significant differences that cause you to support one but not the other?
April 5th, 2010 at 7:45 am
The flat tax, as I understand it, would replace the current progressive income tax system with a single tax bracket for all income levels. I believe this would come with bigger exepmtions and refund credits for the lower earners to ensure that the lowest income levels still pay little or no taxes. In my opinion all the current issues with power centralization and tax exemptions and the infrastructure of the IRS would remain in place. I do not support a flat tax.
The FairTax is a single-rate federal sales tax applied to the cost of all new goods sold, coupled with a “Pre-Bate” monthly payment to every household, based on family size, from the government which would supposedly negate the impact of the sales tax on poverty-level purchases. This would replace federal income taxes (personal and corporate) as well as Social Security and Medicare taxes. The advocates think that most of the proposed sales tax (at 29% or so) is already figured into the price of products, in the way of intermediate taxes applied to goods and companies at every step along the production line, so the net cost of goods would hopefully increase very little if at all. The IRS and the $350 billion spent in tax compliance each year would no longer be necessary, people who bought more new goods would pay more taxes, sheltered income and wealth used to buy new products would finally provide income to the government, people who saved money and bought mostly used goods would probably realize a net income, plus you get to keep your whole paycheck. A progressive taxation system whereby each citizen decides how much he pays in taxes by choosing how much new stuff to buy.
I’ve recently heard folks also comparing the FairTax to a value-added-tax (VAT) system and that comparison is incorrect as well. The VAT would be a consistent tax added at every step along the production line, the cost of which will probably be passed directly to the consumer. The VAT appears to be a massive sales tax increase on the cost of everything sold, without the benefit of replacing the income tax system.
April 5th, 2010 at 8:12 am
Open Minded,
You do realize that the Fair Tax will not eliminate local sale taxes right? Sales taxes are local and state not federal. In fact, under the Fair Tax, state and local governments would be subject to the tax so if they are only going to stay equal, they would have to raise taxes somewhere to balance the budget and pay the new tax on them.
April 5th, 2010 at 8:50 am
…or cut spending…
April 5th, 2010 at 9:06 am
Opened minded,
I do not understand how your comment reflects on the favor-ability of the Fair Tax.
Perhaps government can be more efficient. But however inefficient government is, we have to pay for it.
April 6th, 2010 at 6:24 am
Geez Louise, David, lighten up! Excuse me for taking a brief opportunity for a little off-topic levity!
As I wrote above, one of the unknown components of the FairTax is how consumer pricing will react under the program. Advocates believe that, once all the intermediate taxes are stripped out of the production process along the way, and then the 29% sales tax is added at the cash register, the net sales price of a loaf of bread or a new bike won’t change by much, if at all. You make a legitimate assertion up higher in this thread that the cost of second-hand goods will rise because demand will increase. Both advocates and opponents would like to believe they can predict the affects of any change to the tax code, but you and I know there are a lot of things we don’t know.
If in fact prices would change very little, then your issue about states and localities needing more money to pay for the FairTax would go away. It’s a very reasonable consideration, I’m sorry I don’t have a definitive answer for you.
April 6th, 2010 at 12:13 pm
I have stated that I might be in favor of eliminating all taxes on businesses other then environmental impact fees. However my support would only come with the stipulation that what remains behind to fund our federal government is a progressive income tax. If eliminating the taxes on businesses would result in such a lowering of prices for goods and services, these savings would be just as true under my plan as under the Fair Tax, but we would maintain a progressive income tax system.
Why should Paris Hilton pay a higher rate then I do on most of her earnings? Because she can afford to and I can not. Paris Hilton lives the life of luxury while I had to scrimp and save in order to put my kids through college.
April 6th, 2010 at 12:18 pm
Open Minded: “Bleeding heart liberals” have compassion for those less fortunate, such as American citizens who are literally dying because of lack of access to health care due to lack of health insurance. It is hard to muster much sympathy for the tragic plight of our disadvantaged billionaires.
The bottom line is that the vast majority of Americans support progressive taxation, and would prefer taxes to be even more progressive rather than less.
Your political agenda depends on persuading a majority of Americans to pay more taxes, accept less government services, or both, and your primary method of persuasion seems to be to call them un-American. Good luck with that!
April 6th, 2010 at 12:54 pm
In other tax news: ExxonMobil had a gross operating profit of $53 billion in 2009, but paid $0 U.S. taxes. On the other hand, they contributed to society in other ways, such as spending $27,430,000 lobbying Congress. Maybe you could hold a bake sale to help them out.
April 6th, 2010 at 1:32 pm
The article you linked to says that ExxonMobil actually paid $15 billion in taxes just none of these taxes were paid here in the USA. While many of these taxes were unavoidable, some of them were paid in areas where they sheltered money to avoid high US tax rates.
Bring the money home. You can’t get a better tax rate then zero. Meanwhile instead of employing accountants in the Cayman Islands you will provide employment to accountants here in the good ole USA. Without providing the motivation for companies to indulge in these legal tax dodges, you get maximum employment and maximum profits from operating to the largest extent possible here.
April 6th, 2010 at 5:40 pm
So the progressive income tax was to pay for the Civil War.
Have we paid for it yet?
April 7th, 2010 at 11:30 am
I believe the income tax that was implemented during the Civil War was eliminated in 1872. After that there was a brief attempt to reintroduce it in 1894 but income taxes were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and that put an end to them for a time. In 1913 the 16th Amendment to the Constitution was passed and we have had income taxes (progressive in nature) ever since.
While doing a little searching for the facts stated above, I noted that while the income tax signed into law by Lincoln was progressive, it started with those making as little as $300 per year (although $300 was a pretty fair amount of money back then). Another interesting fact I came across is that while Ronald Reagan reduced income taxes while he was in office, he at least partially offset these decreases with increased taxes on businesses.