There's this idea out there that Democrats raise taxes and Republicans lower them. That's broadly true when you're talking about aggregate government revenues.

Art Laffer would beg to differ.

Actually the true statement is that Democrats tend to raise specific taxes on certain groups of people and Republicans tend to lower said taxes. As my middle class parents always say "we're too rich to benefit from Dem. programs and too poor to benefit from GOP tax cuts": most people don't really have too much of a shift in the burdon of specific income taxes whether Dems. or the GOP are making the tax law.

OTOH, gov. costs money and it has to be paid for somehow. While Joe Professional isn't really benefiting from "Democratic" programs, he's benefiting from government programs in general (even if, due to the long line at the DMV, he "hates government"). So reducing certain income streams means that either people get less government, ending up costing them in other places ... or they have to pay more fees, local taxes, etc.

So, really, pace Laffer, when all is said and done, you get what you pay for and you end up paying for it no matter what: Dem., GOP in office ... it really doesn't matter to certain aggregate burdons or even individual burdons (unless you're super rich and can afford the burdon anyway).

So why not vote for the party who will be the best steward of government and steer the ship of state in the right direction?

But in increasing the burden of the rich, they're often able to lower it on the poor and working class.

Yes, it's called "class warfare" where you transfer the tax responsibility from one group and give it to another. Most plain folks don't understand how skewed it already is. Here is tax year 2005. Little has changed since then:

Top 1% Pay 39.38%

Top 5% Pay 59.67

Top 10% Pay 70.30%

Top 25% Pay 85.99%

Top 50% Pay 96.93%

Bottom 50% Pay 3.07%

So, if the top 10% already carry 70.30 and the bottom 50% pay only 3.07 of the tax burden, how much more do liberals wish to skew the tax burden to these earners?

I am not rich. I an educated, self-employed, hold two state professional licenses and make about 100K in a good year. I am not speaking out on this fairness issue because I would personally benefit. I am speaking because fair is fair and unfair is unfair and it's very unfair for liberals to ask most of the people who use the same services to pay next to nothing and wish to grow government on the backs of those who are the economic engine of this country.

Sorry El Viajero, but this: "I am not rich." doesn't equel this: "I an educated, self-employed, hold two state professional licenses and make about 100K in a good year."

- You have a college degree
- You own your own business
- You're double-licensed
- And you make $100k

You're rich, whether you agree or not. Now if it's an issue of being able to afford your house and new car... those are lifestyle choices you made. Your income puts you into the top 10% of all Americans.

So, how do you get it across to the 90% or more Americans who would would benefit from a more progressive tax structure through lower taxes, more services/safety nets or both that:

(1) they really will benefit, i.e. have more money because they will be paying less or better services/safety nets and more fundamentally

(2) that taxes pay for services that benefit them, that taxes aren't just tribute they pay to politicians and useless, obstructive bureaucrats

During the last election, when Kerry promised that he wouldn't raise taxes for the middle class but only for the rich Bush's response was that it was a lie. His words were "You know the rich--they have accountants." The argument insofar as I can reconstruct it was: Democrats will raise overall taxes, but the rich who can afford professional help will avoid paying their share so the major burden of these increased taxes will fall on you working class folks who are already struggling.

I had this discussion with my daughter who's a very smart undergraduate and I'm relaying her question: why don't Democrats, when they address the general public, say loud and clear that taxes are payment for services and insurance schemes from which they benefit rather than extortion from which they should want "relief"?

I feel guilty dignifying Fred Jones/El Viajero/Randall Flagg with a response, but I think Dustin faces a pretty common problem — the meaning of "rich" is vague and inconsistent. I mean, when we phrase things as upper, middle and lower class, it sounds like we're dividing salaries into thirds or fifths or something, and everyone with income higher than the bottom fifth is middle class and everyone in the top fifth is upper class. For details.

"Upper class" is often used to mean "rich," so do you really want to say that 20 percent of Americans are rich? Well, even if that is accurate — and it might not be, because cost of living varies widely from one place and lifestyle to another — it's bad politics. 20 percent of the population is a big voting bloc, and it wouldn't naturally be a unified big voting bloc on its own. Everyone with a household income over $88,030 is in the top fifth. That includes small business owners who buy their own insurance or a married couple with jobs as public schoolteachers, if they live in a state with halfway decent unions. Those people don't naturally have the same economic interests as the Bush or the Walton families, or even the same interests as a lawyer in Manhattan or something. Economic insecurity matters to them. They might use public transportation if there was halfway decent infrastructure, they'll need Medicare or Medicaid, etc.

So "rich," like "racist," should probably be avoided, because it's too vague. Everyone uses it to mean what they want it to mean, and they can all make a good case that their definition makes sense even though a lot of those definitions are inconsistent.

And El, if you were at all interested in honest debate or fairness, you would have posted a list of income distributions next to those tax numbers.

You're rich, whether you agree or not. Now if it's an issue of being able to afford your house and new car... those are lifestyle choices you made. Your income puts you into the top 10% of all Americans. - Dustin

How exactly is one rich if one is not able to afford a house and a new car?

If you say "well, you choose to live in location [X]" ... if you live in another location, you might get paid less then ... the US is so big and has so many different economies, that one dollar in NYC is nominally the same as one dollar in Podunkville means about as much as $1US buying however many rupees it buys on the open market. Someone making the market equivalent of a $100K salary in India is probably much richer (not only in relative terms, as India is a relatively poor country ... but in absolute terms as well) than someone making $100K in Peoria, IL

Of course, the person in Peoria makes the lifestyle choice to be in Peoria you could argue. But then if she were in India, she'd not be making the market equivalent of $100K rupees anyway (this is how outsourcing works, isn't it?), so she'd probably be just as rich.

Similarly, someone making $100K in NYC could move to Peoria (ignoring moving costs, which are substantial, even to move within the country), but then, would she still be making $100K?

These differences in standard of living are real and the GOP has been able to exploit them for political benefit ("someone in NYC who makes $100K is not rich -- so why tax them like they are") as well as to successfully sweep them under the rug when the Dems. try to take them into account ("someone [in NYC] is getting a gummint program designed for the middle class even though they make $100K").

*

Still - the problem with El Viajero's argument is that it describes percent burdon of taxes without reference to percent of the economic pie controlled by the wealthy. And, c.f. H.E. Baber's remarks on the purpose of taxes, the wealthy benefit much from a stable government that sets the rules for the competition in which the wealthy have done so well -- they have a large stake in the system so they should pay for it!

FDR understood this -- he saved capitalism from the mob with pitchforks ... of course, his fellow patricians viewed him as a class traitor even as he saved their class' collective posterior.

Sorry to break this debate with El Viajero, but I'd like to call attention to Megan's quote: "it seems that Obama's tax plan is most likely to lower my tax bills"

That's an incomplete analysis. What's more accurate, and more effective politically is to say: "it seems that Obama's tax plan is most likely to lower my bills", because money coming in from the rich will, to a certain degree, result in lower costs for others due to funding of infrastructure (less expensive to transport goods), education (restraining the rise in tuition costs), and so on.

Looking at it from a purely "will my taxes go down" perspective, limits the advantages of waging class war (if that's how you want to characterize it).

This theoretical discussion is somewhat ridiculous. During the 1990s, we saw that the Clinton tax rates balanced the budget without tanking the economy. Restoring those rates would be the sensible approach; after the budget gets into balance then some "fairness" tweaks might then be appropriate (AMT revision, etc.).

Another point that gets ignored is that raising taxes in order to balance the budget or reduce the national debt also reduces the interest paid on the national debt (i.e., funding the Chinese military).

There are too many misstatements in this thread to count, but let me interject a couple of comments:
Ezra - your logic takes a nosedive in the sentence: "Rather, wealth is unequal, and taxes are unequal." We are not taxed on our wealth in America (for the most part). We are taxed on our income, whether it is from wages, salaries, tips, stock dividends, or capital gains. So equating the two makes no sense.

Secondly, DAS correctly points out that El Viajero's argument - as we've seen time and again from conservatives and especially libertarians, emphasizes the aggregate percentage that the wealthy pay, without referencing the disparity in income between them and the lower quartiles of income earners.

Also - I should point out that sociologists have for sometime used a more equitable SES - Socioeconomic status - as a reference point between "classes" or groups, rather than a strictly economic slice and dice. Rather than flail away at arguing about whether middle class ends at $88k income, or $100 income, or $175 income (and whether you're talking about individuals, or families), we should read a bit of sociology to find out what current thinking is on this subject.

Finally, I would argue that we divorce the conversation between taxes for individuals, and taxes for business. Businesses aren't people, and though they enjoy almost all of the benefits of our society, (except for voting), I believe they should pay a hefty portion of taxes for the privilege of existing and operating in a society that treats them (and their property and the contracts they enter into) as separate entities.

And, c.f. H.E. Baber's remarks on the purpose of taxes, the wealthy benefit much from a stable government that sets the rules for the competition in which the wealthy have done so well -- they have a large stake in the system so they should pay for it!

This. Also, if you tax poor people more, they don't buy as much food. If you tax rich people more, you make them wait an extra year or two between car trade-ins, and maybe they have to stop and think before just randomly buying a PS3. My heart does not blled.

This is definitely the beginning of an epic class war and given the nature of the global economy the rich look likely to win.

Just look at the UK: of those with incomes over 10 mil only 1/6 pay any income tax!

What is different now then say the 1960s when the highest income tax bracket was 91% is that the rich and talented now have options. A talented American capitalist can make roughly the same pre-tax income (i.e. wages) in UK, HK, and Russia (sometimes more). Except of course taxes are either zero (UK as a non-dom) or low (13% flat tax in Russia).
Until recently the IRS has made it near impossible for Americans to leave and then come back without paying some or all taxes on offshore income. Now the laws are different and young Americans can become expats, pay no US income tax, and return (not as a citizen of course).

In Vancouver this has already happened. Many of my brothers friends are white and from Hong Kong (4 of his classmates plus my neighbor). Their parents start businesses in Hong Kong when they were young (usually real estate or investing) and then come back to Canada to live tax free. And what can Canada do? Clearly they want these people with their boats and yes planes to live here (property tax, GST/PST) but they have to realize these people are versatile and tax sensitive. Anyways it makes it really hard for people like my mom (whose paid all her taxes) with her BMW 5 series to compete with a #$%#&$ lamborghini gallardo!

My relatives in UK say the same thing. Just look at the top 10 richest Londoners. Most of them are from Russia (Abramovic) or India. It is only a matter of time before high taxes in the US drive away the capitalist class and leave the professionals (lawyers, doctors...) to pay the bills.

The comments above demonstrate that even those who wish to "tax the rich" can't even define what that is. And, as was correctly pointed out, we don't tax wealth, we tax income.

The bottom line is that any way you slice it, the lower 50% of earners pay very, very little as it is.

- You have a college degree
- You own your own business
- You're double-licensed
- And you make $100k

Dustin seems to think this was all just luck. The truth is I was born into a poor family and neither of my parents went to college. I went through public school and went to a state college. I went into debt and worked my ass off. And anyone can do what I have done. Even Barack's nomination demonstrates that minorities can get ahead as well through their own efforts.
Instead of just cogs in the wheel as liberals would have you believe, people have tremendous control over their lives in the United States. Just ask Obama.

Let's see, Viajero, Obama's parents met when they were students at the University of Hawaii. His mother I believe got a degree in anthropology and later worked as a microcredit consultant. Obama went to Punahao, the fanciest prep school in Hawaii. All that is a heck of a lot of good luck that most people don't have.

And then there is the biggest luck lottery of all: the lottery of intelligence and talent. Obama was very lucky there too--much luckier than most of us.

I've been very lucky too: I know jolly well that if I hadn't been born into a fairly well-off, educated family I wouldn't have a college degree much less a Ph.D. Of course most people can accomplish a little by their own efforts, and some exceptional people--people who are lucky enough to be very smart and energetic as no doubt you are, Viajero, can accomplish quite a bit through their own heroic efforts. But most of us, including me, cannot. We have little control over the course of our lives.

And yet lots of us, including me, who just lucked out are are living very well indeed while lots of other people who are no less industrious or energetic than we are, are living lousy lives because they didn't draw those winning lottery tickets. I take it that social policy is geared to meet the needs of the overwhelming majority, not the exceptional few like you and for most of us our lot in life is largely a matter of dumb luck.

yes let's use sociological definitions to determine tax brackets.

A portion of Ezra's readership goes squishy (and often defensive) when the issue of class comes up. You are not a progressive if you do not support progressive taxation. There are no exceptions for teachers, Manhattanites, and those of us who will be paying the higher rates.

The rates for the top 2% should be much higher but the top 20% of households should pay more as well.

Let's see, Viajero, Obama's parents met when they were students at the University of Hawaii. His mother I believe got a degree in anthropology and later worked as a microcredit consultant. Obama went to Punahao, the fanciest prep school in Hawaii. All that is a heck of a lot of good luck that most people don't have.

How is any of that luck? More like design by first his parents and then Barack himself. Looks like hard work and direction from parents who care to me.

The rates for the top 2% should be much higher but the top 20% of households should pay more as well.

"Don't tax you, don't tax me, tax that man behind that tree!"

Obama went to Punahao, the fanciest prep school in Hawaii. All that is a heck of a lot of good luck that most people don't have.

In another thread, I was "schooled" by all the liberals defending the teachers' unions that in study after study, there was no discernable difference in the quality of public or private education.

I'm with you in that private education where special interest groups intent on using the schools to promote their agenda to the young and t and the unions, who exist not for the students' benefit, but for the teachers', is simply inherently better quality.

Thanks for the agreement!

Should be where the special interest groups and unions are in the public schools.
You get thr 'drift'.

Also, let's be clear. We promote equal opportunity, not equal outcomes. It's up to you or your parents to take advantage of the opportunites around you. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make drink it.

TAX ME, TAX ME! I'm in that top 10% and I'd be delighted to pay more taxes to buy more services and social safety nets.

I pay lots for insurance. I'd rather pay taxes to support a single-payer health insurance scheme. I squirrel away money because the social safety nets our government provides are 20 fathoms underwater, and I'm scared anyway. I'd rather pay more taxes for more security. I've never owned a new car or been on one of those vacations where you actually go somewhere out of town and stay in a hotel and my entire wardrobe comes from yard sales, thrift stores and Target because I'm socking away money to buy security.

There's no free ride. If you don't pay taxes to buy security you pay for it through savings and private insurance plans. And you end up paying more for less security because you can't take advantage of risk-pooling and the benefits are in effect capped. One way or the other you are paying.

I don't want more or better stuff: I just want to be sure that whatever happens I will not end up with my back to the wall with no way out. I'm also sick of having to deal with people who've fallen through our government's miserably inadequate social safety nets--the beggars at freeway entrances and at the door of my local supermarket.

So I repeat, please TAX ME! Tax me at 2 or 3 times what I'm currently paying to buy security for me and to eliminate the beggars and underclass that undermine my quality of life.

I'd be delighted to pay more taxes...

No one is stopping you. Here is a link to show you how you can pay more.

Here's the website. Give these guys a call

www.irs.gov

Now, if you're unwilling to do what you said, then you really don't want to pay as much as you want everyone else to pay....and willing to use the full force of the federal government to extract more money from other highly productive people.

Pay some bigot tax, bigot. You owe the IRS $10,000 for every time you froth at the mouth.

"Amanda Marcotte."

That's another ten big ones.