This is, in one chart, what the debate over the Bush tax cuts is all about:
The blue is what everyone saves per year under the Democrats partial repeal, which passed the House today (and I think is a bad idea anyway, though obviously not as bad as the GOP plan). The red is what would be tacked on by the GOP's full extension, except that the last bar, for those making $1 million or more a year, which actually should go up over $100,000 - there just wasn't room to fit it without destroying the rest of the graph.And we're arguing about this when either policy would hugely increase the national debt, while at the same time freezing federal pay, letting unemployment benefits expire, and receiving new deficit-reduction proposals virtually every day.
Wow I fucking hate U.S. politics sometimes.
Don't have time to click the links. Will do later. Freezing federal pay and letting unemployment benefits (better yet: completely and permanently eliminating them) expire are GREAT ideas. Which is why, more likely than not, they will not happen.
ReplyDeleteThe GOP tax cuts are pretty horrible and like you said the Democrats cuts are not that much better. Why not just a FLAT TAX? Too simple??? Too uncomplicated????? Why not make our lives that much easier??? Oh I know why, too many IRS agents will lose their nice cushy jobs!
"Freezing federal pay and letting unemployment benefits (better yet: completely and permanently eliminating them) expire are GREAT ideas."
ReplyDeleteI'd be interested to know your rationale for both of these, particularly unemployment. My take is that tens of millions of people were basically fucked out of their livelihoods by Wall Street (and yes, by shitty federal policies) and it should be a very high priority for us to try to minimize the damage to their lives and their kids lives. Long-term unemployment is an incredibly scary thing and it's something that all too many people are having to deal with right now through no fault of their own.
I'd also be curious to know: Do you really, honestly, believe that we don't have a flat tax (or, more generally, a simpler tax code) because it would cost IRS agents their jobs?
Man I am sick of people trying to get a free ride and expecting something for nothing. No fault of their own??? Sounds like the tooth fairy randomly came down and whisked their job away. Having a job today does not guarantee you will have one tomorrow. Simple as that. What incentive is there to find a new job if you are receiving unemployment benefits?? ? Should have made yourself a more important asset and maybe you would still have a job. I for one have never lost a job and if I did I would not expect anyone to subsidize my lifestyle in the mean time. We have a lazy workforce, that is why we have so many illegal immigrants (I know I really shouldn't open this can or worms) in this country. They are willing to work and Americans are not.
ReplyDeleteFreezing federal pay: "Small businesses and families are tightening their belts," Obama said in brief remarks at the White House. "The government should, too." Makes sense to me. Lets just say it is a morale booster for the unemployed. What it is going to save is only chump change really but its a political move man. You know, that thing you fucking hate............
Answer to Flat tax: IRS agents losing their jobs is just one of many reasons we don't have a flat tax. And not even near the top of the list of reasons really, but one nonetheless. Top reason would be govt. would lose its most flexible tool for procuring votes and redistributing the wealth. You know that whole rich getting richer thing.......
All right it is Friday which means it is almost the weekend. So all politics are now postponed till Monday.
On unemployment, I would normally be more sympathetic to your line of argument, but right now huge numbers of people (easily the most since the depression) are unemployed for long periods of time (years) as a result economy-wide factors they didn't have anything to do with (mostly speculation on Wall Street). I guess the "normal economy" analogy I would draw is to globalization: no matter how good an employee you are, if your office or factory move overseas, you're going to lose your job. And I'm not sure that's your fault. I view it as something of a social contract: We all agree to use a system that is generally beneficial but can also be extremely fickle and harsh, so if the system fucks someone we owe them some minimal support until they find a new job.
ReplyDeleteI guess your take is that we all agree to live in such a system, so we all ought to prepare ourselves for the fact that it can be fickle and harsh (by saving a lot, for example), which I guess makes some sense. It would take substantial reorientation of the economy, though. Home ownership would essentially be limited to the extremely wealthy, for example.
Pretty liberal on immigration (which I guess is not that surprising)...
Just to clarify: I did hate the pay freeze decision - I just think taking money out of the economy right now is a bad idea, and making government less competitive is also a bad idea. (It's always going to be tough for regulators to keep up with industry, but even tougher when they're less qualified or talented.)
We agree! Deductions and whatnot give politicians the power to reward favored constituencies. I would love to see a simpler tax code. Doesn't have to be a flat tax (an income tax with minimal or no deductions would be nearly as simple), though I could see some benefits to it. My concern would be placing more tax burden on the poor and working class.
"All politics are now postponed until Monday." Fine with me. Disagreeing is kind of exhausting, so maybe the theme for next week can be what we agree on. I'm basically a libertarian on social issues - that's one reason the Republican Party drives me much crazier than a traditional conservative or libertarian party would, as not only do I disagree with their fiscal priorities, but man do they love to have government involved in religion and morality...