Government-run, good enough
BDN columnist Matthew Gagnon, a Republican strategist, knows that there’s a problem with our health insurance system (March 30 column). He also knows that we are “simply never going to get (good coverage at an affordable rate) from a government-operated system.”
And yet, when I asked the many students in my Penobscot Valley Senior College class how many of them wanted to give up their government-run health insurance called Medicare, and to enjoy instead the “liberty” of getting their health insurance from the free market, free of government interference, not a one raised his or her hand. Not a one.
Sol Goldman
Bangor
Communism is …
I’m prompted to write after reading two recent letters that semantically misuse the word “communism.”
I learned from a friend, a retired professor from Penn State University, that semantics usually are an obstacle to understanding. Communism is not totalitarianism, communism is the Benedictine Monks of St. Mary’s Abbey who were the greatest teachers a young man could have, or it is the Trappist’s of Gethsemane who harbored Thomas Merton.
I understand that the late infamous Joe McCarthy and the other Joe — Stalin — did distort the meaning of the word but they knew nothing of real communists. Yes, we should rail against totalitarianism but communism should not be confused with totalitarianism.
William Ward
Ellsworth
Don’t waste Maine
Having returned from a town comprehensive plan committee discussion about preserving agricultural farmland and critical natural resources, I am filled with inspiration from having gathered with neighbors to talk about how better to care for this great land. I also cannot ignore a nagging feeling of utter despair when I think that state officials would pass LD 879 which seeks to expand the dump in Norridgewock.
What can town committees and governments actually accomplish when our representatives in Augusta actually passed a bill which would allow out-of-state trash to freely come into the state to poison our woods, fields and watersheds with God knows what? Toxic medical waste and city construction debris? How could they possibly have overlooked that this dump has already had major problems?
In 1989 the Norridgewock dump, at the time owned by CWS and servicing only 30 Maine communities, collapsed under the weight of trash and doubled the size of the dump from 12 acres to 25 acres! The bed of soft clay couldn’t handle the amount of trash then, let alone if it were to be expanded and receive trash from out of state.
Maine’s pride is its pristine and undeveloped environment. Gov. LePage may have put that sign up, but I believe many Mainers would agree that we are not open for just any business.
But this isn’t over yet! Contact Gov. LePage and ask him to veto LD 879.
Elizabeth Smedberg
Starks
Cutting off oil companies
Congress recently voted to continue oil and gas subsidies. I find this quite depressing, but understandable. To run a campaign and get elected, politicians need lots of money. The oil companies supply funds to many a politician. Voting against the subsidies would be biting the hand that feeds them.
In Maine, where 40 percent of fuel use goes to heating our homes, we actually have the power to cut the amount we send to oil and gas companies. We can do this by making our homes more energy efficient. Most buildings in Maine are so inefficient that fuel use can cut by 40 percent easily.
To start saving on heating fuel costs, contact an Efficiency Maine participating energy adviser. They will identify the least costly home upgrades to cut your bills and keep some of the money you’ve been spending on heating in your own pocket. Efficiency Maine even has low cost PACE loans to finance the work.
The time to defund the oil companies is today. Start with your own home; from there, move on to encouraging others to weatherize, too!
Laurie Osher
President
Maine Interfaith Power and Light
Oppose mine law
The Legislature should oppose LD 1853, An Act to Improve Environmental Oversight and Streamline Permitting for Mining in Maine.
In the early 1970s while working in Ohio under contract to the Army Corps of Engineers, I witnessed firsthand the harmful impact of acid mine pollution associated with the coal industry. If LD 1853 is passed, Maine faces similar and irreversible damage to groundwater, streams and lakes through sulfuric acid pollution originating from metal mine seepage, tailings and overburden. Aquatic organisms cannot survive such conditions.
Once LD 1853 weakens Maine’s metal mining regulations, the Bald Mountain mining operation will be replicated throughout the state’s metal ore-bearing areas and the pollution will be extensive. Private corporations will have made their profits, and the people of Maine will be left with the expense of dealing with the pollution.
LeRoy Bandy
Orono
Out of touch Republicans
The U.S. House of Representatives passed a budget along party lines that would reduce low income program spending by $3.3 trillion over 10 years, including cuts to Medicaid (20 percent), food stamps (17 percent), housing assistance, job training and Pell grants. Mitt Romney said “It’s an excellent piece of work” and Rick Santorum said it didn’t cut enough. This budget also includes substantial tax cuts for the rich.
According to a New York Times article on a study conducted of 2010 U.S. tax returns by economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez, 93 percent of the additional $288 billion created that year (compared to 2009) went to the top 1 percent of taxpayers, those with at least $352,000 in income, for an average increase of 11.6 percent to each of those households.
The super-rich got even richer faster. In 2010, 37 percent of this additional income went to just the top 0.01 percent or about 15,000 households, having average incomes of $23.8 million. These fortunate few saw their incomes rise by 21.5 percent.
The bottom 99 percent received an average $80 increase in income after inflation. The top 1 percent, whose average income is $1,019,089 had an 11.6 percent increase.
Acceptance of these ideas by Romney, Santorum and every single House Republican indicates how out-of-touch they are with the reality faced by 99 percent of our country. The last thing we need is more concentration of wealth in those who can‘t spend it fast enough and at the expense of the rest of us.
Frank John
Brooklin
William Ward….. Communism
http://www.yourdictionary.com/communism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/communism
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/communism
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/communism
You are an apologist for some of the most heinous crimes in history that were committed, some even before Joe McCarthy was even in the Senate and some after. Over 100 million in the 20th century alone were murdered in its name.
You can take your semantics and shove it.
How does that compare with the number of people killed in the name of christianity?
Mr Ward was discussing Communism, not religion. However I’ll do what I can.
In the 20th century, since the advent of Communism the numbers of murders committed in its name outstrips the murders committed by all the religions combined.
I find it sad that liberals don’t know that.
Of course liberals know that. Everybody knows that.
Hopper didn’t seem to know, so I answered him/her.
I’m a liberal who knows very well about the murders caused by Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot. I know that, for a time, some American radicals turned a blind eye, but the liberals broke with the radicals during the Cold War over this issue.
And hopper was wrong, although Harry H Snyder III does have a point about the horrible deaths during the separation of Pakistan from India (partly political and/or ethnic, although mostly religious). I don’t like comparing this suffering with that suffering. In both cases, the suffering was incredible. It’s just so sad that we should have to have this discussion.
Personally, I came out of the US left of the sixties where that blind eye still existed. University students, including some in Orono, were praising Stalin and were extolling Mao even as he continued his murderous reign. It does not pay and I find it a bit frightening that the American left still can soft-pedal Communism. All this warm fuzzy 3 member community stuff in no way resembles modern communism.
Yes, I was in college in Michigan in the sixties, and we were young and stupid and we all said a lot of dumb things. There is a certain radicalism of youth that, I hope, we grow out of.
When I talk of anti-communist liberals during the Cold War I’m thinking of the Americans for Democratic Action, the AFL-CIO, and people like Hubert Humphrey, John F. Kennedy, most liberal Democrats (and liberal Republicans, as there were many back then), theologian Reinhold Niebuhr, and many others.
Yeah when we were young we did…said a lot of stupid stuff. What is amazing to me is you still seem to see only what you wish to see.
Good luck with that.
Look in the mirror.
You are confusing economic Marxism with the cultural Marxism in the colleges and universities of the 50s and 60s. Cultural Marxism informed the movement against racial inequality. Pat Buchanan, being a racist in good standing, tried to equate the cultural Marxism of liberals of that day with economic Marxism in order to discredit both liberals and the issue of racial inequality. Students were not praising Stalin and Mao. We were reading the “Gulag Archipelago” and “A Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich”
Reading Mao’s “Little Red Book” was a popular fad when it came out in 1964. However, that didn’t constitute praise of Mao, especially after he started the Cultural Revolution in 1966.
Perhaps you graduated from a conservative college that told you this nonsense and equated liberals with Marxism and hence to Russian/Chinese repression.
I had friends in the CPUSA SWP as well was heavily involved with the Anti-Vietnam War movement of the time. I worked in anti-war stuff from Chicago to DC. It was a bit more involved than you believe Sally. Your claims soft pedal events of the time. Believe me these folks were not cultural Marxists, whatever that is.
I’m not sure that the “liberals” parted company with the progressive radicals, Liberals still defend the progressive radicals. kind of like the moderate Muslims defending, or at least not condeming, the violent radical “Muslims”.
You misunderstand me. I was saying that, on the issue of Stalinism and Maoism, the liberals parted company with the radicals. That was the topic — Communism.
Most New Dealers thought liberalism and communism had nothing in common. Most liberals (Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Hubert Humphrey, Henry “Scoop” Jackson,the Americans for Democratic Action, etc.) became strongly anti-Communist during the Cold War.
Many radicals (folks like Henry Wallace and Paul Robeson, and later, some of the ’60s radicals) continued to turn a blind eye to the terrible things the Stalinists did. However, even Henry Wallace broke with the Progressive Party once North Korea invaded the south.
I was tallking about one specific topic, communism. That was the discussion thread.
Yes, liberals and radicals continued to have some things in common, and disagree on other things.
Actually not. The deaths committed in the name of religion outstrip even Stalin & Hitler, Pol pot etc. In India alone, over 50 million people lost their lives when the Hindus and Muslims had their little tiff after the British left.
Did you count the of 49-78 million Chinese killed by Mao between 1948 and 1969?
Or 23 million killed by Stalin?
But really that number doesn’t matter Harry because no more than 4,500 deaths occurred during the India-Pakistan conflict in 1947. Most of those were military.
Check your history links Harry.
Check yours. I didn’t get my figure from “links” I got it from “Nine Hours to Rama” a 1963 movie about the assassination of the Mahatma.
Most scholars say the number was anywhere from 250k to 1 million not nearly the 50 million you claim.
You do remember that movies for the most part are fiction?
Liberal? Who’s a liberal?
I think if you looked a bit further back into history you numbers would be a bit more appropriate.
All the Crusades together only about 9 million were killed. That was a long weekend on Mao’s watch.
This time, Cheesecake, I think you’re right. It happens every now and then.
You MUST mean that since Karl wrote down what communism is…. Or what he thought it should be…
Commune – ism has been a preferred form of governance since the dawn of Judaism… It was easier back then because “communities” were considerably smaller.
This is a dumb conversation because what you claim to be Communism doesn’t exist except in the smallest of communities. Where it has existed in larger groups and nations has been authoritarian and murderous to those who disagree.
Gulags in Russia, villages in China stripped of their harvest and left to starve…. that is Communism. The 20th century version.
You are correct this has become a “dumb conversation” I would suggest that is your doing.
I doubt that they don’t know it, they just ignore it.
Which is why I poke the left on this issue every time it comes up.
They think “This time we will get it right”.
When you become smug and self-congratulatory, that is when you are most likely to make the very mistake you accuse your adversary of.
Just don’t forget to poke yourself, too. Extremism is a problem on both right and left.
I’ll leave that to you. You are pretty good at it. :)
They think “This time we will get it right”.
Some on both the far right and far left make that mistake, yes.
We know it, we don’t ignore it, and frankly we are horrified by Stalinism, just as you ought to be horrified by the right wing equivalent of Stalin — Hitler, and in this country, the Ku Klux Klan. We should all remember the excesses, and the murderers who took these extreme positions on left and right, and vow to never repeat those nauseating mistakes.
Ward wasn’t describing Marxism, Leninism, or Stalinism. He was discussing communism — which is what the Shakers practiced (there are now only three left, I believe, so I use past tense), and what the Hutterites and Trappists (no apostrophe please) still practice — sharing all of their goods in common. The biblical book Acts of the Apostles says that this was the practice of the first Christians.
He was making the point, I believe, that we should not confuse Stalism or Maoism or North Korea with communism. Stalin, Mao, and North Korea’s Kim are totalitarian dictators.
Alas, the ideal of communism never seems to work outside of small religious communities! On a larger scale, and outside of a religious context, it seems to flop spectacularly.
A joke: “What happens when communism comes to the desert? For a long time, nothing. But eventually there is a shortage of sand.”
:-)
All of those dictators you mentioned and a whole lot more believed themselves to be Communists. I think it would be the smart play to take them at their word.
You made me smile, thanks.
I’m glad you liked the joke!
I wrote a long reply to wandini — to summarize, capitalism and socialism are economic systems. Dictatorship and representative democracy are political systems.
Personally, I like capitalism plus representative democracy, but there are lots of examples of capitalist dictatorships, and it might be possible to mix socialism with representative democracy.
Still, I agree with you — communism is now inextricably linked in the public mind with Stalinist or Maoist totalitarianism.
I think when most people use the word “communism” it is used to refer to the systems run under rulers such as Lenin, Stalin, Mao and company. Ward’s letter is making a technical point that ends up being pointless. The general public understands communism to mean “totalitarianism with the communist ideology”. So common usage has trumped the literal definition.
Cool, isn’t it?
Not pointless at all. Totalitarianism is not equivalent to communism. For example, Naziism was totalitarian but not communist.
And “Nazi” was short for National Socialism, and the Third Reich was certainly not socialist.
Just like we supposedly have “Capitalism” in this country, but it could more accurately be described as Corporate Welfare. “Too big to fail” banks, endless subsidies, no taxes paid by giants like GE, etc.
Words DO matter, they keep the lies going, just read George Orwell.
I did not say that people think all totalitarianism is communism. I said, in general usage, those who grew up before 1989 associate the term communism with totalitarianism. There has never been a major communist system that was not under a totalitarian regime.
It’s kind of scary that you believe that people that grew up post 1989 don’t. This is what the person meant when he said “doomed to repeat history”.
I think you misunderstand what she said.
I grew up WAY before 1989, and I do not. The Iroquois were a communist system and they were not under totalitarian rule. The Great States of Massachusetts, Virginia, and Pennsylvania were “communist” What do you think “Commonwealth” means?
Commonwealth is a traditional English term for a political
community founded for the common good. Historically, it has sometimes
been synonymous with “republic”.
No, it means just what it says “common Wealth” simple. a community founded for the equal good of all.
“Equal good”??? Really?? Must be in the Marxist Idiom dictionary because that turn of phrase “equal good” does not appear in the definition of commonwealth in any of these dictionaries.
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/commonwealth
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Commonwealth
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/commonwealth
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/commonwealth
You are deliberately misinterpreting Harry’s use of the phrase “equal good” to the mean “equal amount of goods or wealth” for everyone.
Nowhere does the phrase “equal good” appear in any of the dictionaries under the definition of Commonwealth. He made that up.
And you are interpreting it for him.
He claimed to define Commonwealth. His definition does not appear.
EtymologyThe English noun commonwealth in the sense meaning “public welfare; general good or advantage” dates from the 15th century. The original phrase “the common-wealth” or “the common weal” (echoed in the modern synonym “public weal”) comes from the old meaning of “wealth,” which is “well-being”, and is itself a loose translation of the Latin res publica(republic). The term literally meant “common well-being.” In the 17th century the definition of “commonwealth” expanded from its original sense of “public welfare” or “commonweal” to mean “a state in which the supreme power is vested in the people; a republic or democratic state.”From Wikipedia
Thanks for confirming my point.
Historians say the Iroquois “Gayanashagowa” or the “Great Law of Peace”, which was created between 1090 and 1150 AD, influenced the creation of the U.S. Constitution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Law_of_Peace
These colors don’t run, comrades!
Me too, way before 1989. Guess I had a superior education in these matters.
The general uneducated public. Anyone who has studied the economic system feels bad that the human condition can not meld with this system.
Yes, I understand what you are saying, wandini. We often misuse words, and over time that misuse changes the meaning.
However, here’s my perspective: socialism is an economic system, as is capitalism.
Dictatorship, monarchy (rare today), and representative democracy are political systems.
We tend to miss this distinction, and we often assume that a particular economic system has to go hand-in-hand with a particular political system.
While my personal ideal is a capitalist mixed economy combined with a representative democracy, there are are lots of examples of capitalism combined with dictatorship (and China is now one example of this, even though they still use the anachronistic term “Communist”).
Likewise, it is possible, although it would be very unusual, to combine socialism with representative democracy. Off the top of my head, I can’t think of a successful example, although it has been the historic goal of democratic socialist parties such as the Labour parties in Britain and Israel, the New Democratic Party in Canada, the Socialists of France, and Social Democrats of Germany, etc.
There is no equivalent to these socialist parties in the U.S. We have two major capitalist parties, the Democrats and Republicans.
American Socialists had their heyday in the early twentieth century under the leadership of Eugene V. Debs, and a smaller resurgence during the Great Depression under the leadership of the Rev. Norman Thomas. Since the advent of the Cold War there has been no viable socialist movement in the U.S.
Unfortunately, the term “communism,” because of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin, is now inextricably linked in the public mind with dictatorship, especially totalitarian dictatorship of the Stalinist or Maoist type.
and there you go… absolutely right.
Very good post.
In actual practice socialism on any large scale always results in less freedom and usually results in totalitarian rule. True socialism relies on EVERYONE participating and only by force can this be achieved. In the real world the closer to pure socialism any large society tries to attain the more totalitarian it must become.
I almost never agree with you — but I agree in substance with what you are saying here. Even in many American communes in the 1800s (New Harmony, Brook Farm, Hopedale, etc.) people found that if the farmer and the fiddler got the same compensation, most people would rather practice the fiddle all day than farm. In religious communities it seems to work on a small scale, but in non-religious utopian communes, and on a large scale, socialism just doesn’t work.
Beyond that, you and I are still likely to disagree on quite a bit. But it’s nice to know that we can agree on something.
You may think I’m a “socialist,” but I’m not. I’m a liberal Democrat (and former liberal Republican). I’ve been a small business owner, and I’ve been a union shop steward in a large factory. Go figure! I’m just not as doctrinaire as some of the folks on these pages.
Not ‘cool’ at all. Nothing cool about misunderstanding and misusing words and concepts.
http://www.hancockshakervillage.org/ – Our first string HS QB who told me a joke with the punch line “…Hey look! Shorty’s growing a mustache!” became the blacksmith at Hancock Shaker Villiage after he graduated in 1979
I lived very near Hancock Shaker Village for many years. They do a great job of maintaining it as a museum. More recently I’ve had an enjoyable visit to the Shaker Village at Sabbathday Lake Maine.
Did you know that the Shaker hymn, “‘Tis a Gift to be Simple” was written in Alfred, Maine?
No, I didn’t until you mentioned it! Is the title also known as: “Simple Gifts”? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_Gifts – wiki says “Simple Gifts” written by Elder Joseph Bracket in 1848 in Elder, Maine.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWTDgc96bg8 – Judy Collins “Simple Gifts”
I’m from Williamstown. My cousin’s construction company knocked over Balance Rock in Lanesboro, possibly while illegally burying PCBs. Sorry.
“Mother Ann predicted that the number of Shakers would reduce to fewer than a child could count on the fingers of one hand, at which time there would be a regeneration.”-
“Shakers alive: the song of Sabbathday Lake” by Philip John Davies, 27 February 2004 in “Open Democracy”
http://www.opendemocracy.net/people-aboutfaith/article_1762.jsp
In your eagerness to condemn Mr. Ward you have completely missed the point of his letter.
Oh I got it. I just don’t buy what he’s selling.
That’s your problem. He wasn’t selling anything.
Sure, whatever.
Actually Cheesey as a former student at John Bapst during the ’60s, when the Brothers were in charge I remember sitting in religion class and having brother Linus saying that the way the Brothers and Nuns lived was an example of a pure form of Communism.
I’m sure, but the soft fuzzy image that portrays is a whole lot different from what its history actually is.
It’s history where.. Long before Karl was a gleam in his mother’s eye, the native people of what is now Long Island New York were practicing communism.
The principle of pure communism is “From each according to ability, to each according to need.” What is wrong with that….except for greed, avarice and laziness…the same problems capitalism has.
Usually the “From each according to ability, to each according to need.” is enforced by a government with the use of guns, coercion, work camps and starvation.
Not in the tribes of New York, not in the “Commonwealths of our young Nation.
You are redefining “Commonwealth” for your own purpose.
ONLY a fool could look at the word “Commonwealth” and say it is divorced from communal-ism.
Only a fool would define a word in common usage today in 17th century terms.
The problem with “pure communisim” is that it can not work. Human nature, the “greed, avarice and laziness” that you mention, I would add these faults to the list: sloth, complaciency, selfishness, power lust, elitism …
Pure communism does work for small familial units and small communities where everyone contributes according to their skill set.
Aboriginal tribes practice communism with the best hunters bringing meat for all the community, the best tailors making the clothing etc. This system works best in a small group unit where most everyone knows everyone. In that system (with small family or tribal units) you don’t have greed or laziness on the level you go with other systems or larger communities.
Bingo!!
Greed and laziness are still there in human nature, the poorer parts of human nature are not acted upon because thes traits would not be tolerated by the society as they are in a more “tolerant” society
If we stopped tolerating the negative human traits our society would be “better”. Remember that would be an intolerant and even totalitarian society.
Yet the Shakers made it work, and the Hutterites still do. The Hutterites have survived because they have children, and the Shakers did not.
Nonetheless, I agree with you that the word “communism” is now linked with Marx, Stalin, and Mao.
You don’t have a clue what he’s selling.
sure.
The point that you have missed is that communisim is a wonderful idea, but … it does and will never work. Humans are not evolved enough.
Communism works the best of any political system in small familial/tribal units or small communites where everyone knows each other and cares for each other.
Humans are a social animal but we are should only be in small familial/tribal groups not large commuities or nations because then our darker side seems to come out more.
Reread the definitions. The Joes (and others) perverted the meanings.
Frank John: Top 1% pay 40% of the federal income tax. Top 10% pay two thirds of all fed income tax.
Should the top 1% pay 60, 70 or 80% of the taxes? Shouldn’t everyone contribute to this country?
The Liberal and Democrats want even more money to spend to buy votes using entitlement programs as the inducement.
The top 1% are assessed at 40%. That doesn’t mean they actually pay out that much in income tax.
Yes it does. The top 1% pay 40% of all Federal income tax.
Ah, but that masks the deeper truth. What do they keep as compared to the 99%?
Capital gains tax is 15% The average working stiff pays between 18 and 20% Federal tax. In the year 2010 Romney paid only 15% on his vast income. In 1998 I paid close to 28% on an income (from work) that was in the six figure range not the 8 figure range that Romney is in. How is it fair that a person making less money can pay more in taxes than someone making more money….. I can’t wait to hear your reply!
That can’t be answered without being accused of class warfare.
Also the IRS doesn’t keep that data and neither does any other agency I can think of . You can keep tax rates by states but by individual taxpayer its more difficult to do.
What data? The question is how is it fair that someone like Romney pays effectively 15% when others making much less pay higher rates.
You were speaking of all taxes were you not? Now you aren’t …. slippery little weasel aren’t you.
It’s safe to say that the entire bulk of Romney’s taxation comes from capital gains, so saying 15% is accurate. What’s slippery is you constantly trying to derail the conversation. The question was whether it’s fair to have a smaller tax burden on a guy like Romney compared to someone who makes much less. Do you think that’s fair?
That was not the question we are dealing with today unless you are the one trying to derail the conversation.
” Capital gains tax is 15% The average working stiff pays between 18 and 20% Federal tax. In the year 2010 Romney paid only 15% on his vast income. In 1998 I paid close to 28% on an income (from work) that was in the six figure range not the 8 figure range that Romney is in. How is it fair that a person making less money can pay more in taxes than someone making more money….. I can’t wait to hear your reply!
“
Ok so what. You are arguing against a case I am not making.
You are blowing smoke.
I just looked up the taxes on the IRS tax tables.
Income tax single %
50K 8,631 17.3
70K 13,631 19.5
100K 21,610 21.6
Romney is married, so the married table is closer to comparing apples to apples.
Income married %
50K 6,654 13.3
70K 9,756 13.9
100K 17,244 17.3
But this is the tax on taxable income. In reality your married
individual making $70K has a standard deduction of $11,600 and 2
individual deductions of $3,700 each totaling $19,000. Tax of $6,804
will be paid on a taxable income of $51,000.
PERCENTAGE ACTUALLY PAID 9.7%
ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh (as I sit in my chair frantically waiving my hand in hopes of being picked) – the correct answer is NO! And let’s not forget how Romney made most of his monies now…
Someone with a sense of humor. GJ. :)
I am sorry – I know you were having a serious conversation. But sometimes it feels like we’re all going to drop our gloves and have a real fist fight – verbally, obviously. All I know is that my spouse and I pay what I think is a lot of federal tax for the, yes, 5-figure salary (how embarassing) we meagerly get to earn – together.
I appreciate humor as much as the next guy. If I get too serious feel free to poke me. Good naturedly of course.
As for our taxes we probably all feel the same as you. I have no problem paying my fair share, but that said, there is nothing about the current system that is equitable. BTW I’ve heard about 1000 different definitions about what “fair share” means.
Posters here, some of them anyway, like to play the gotcha game, put words in your mouth or attach implications to your words you don’t intend. I expect that the bulk of us could sit down with a beer or a glass of wine and hash things out. That I’m afraid is not going to happen so verbal fisticuffs become inevitable.
In the meantime I appreciate your humor. Keep it up.
I just looked up the taxes on the IRS tax tables.
Income tax single %
50K 8,631 17.3
70K 13,631 19.5
100K 21,610 21.6
Romney is married, so the married table is closer to comparing apples to apples.
Income married %
50K 6,654 13.3
70K 9,756 13.9
100K 17,244 17.3
But this is the tax on taxable income. In reality your married
individual making $70K has a standard deduction of $11,600 and 2
individual deductions of $3,700 each totaling $19,000. Tax of $6,804
will be paid on a taxable income of $51,000.
PERCENTAGE ACTUALLY PAID 9.7%
Long term cap is 15%. Monies that were invested were already taxed as income
The money I paid for my personal property was also taxed as income, but that does not stop the State from taxing it’s (supposed) value each year.
You are only paying a tax on the gains, so it matters not whether the money used to buy the asset has or has not been previously taxed. If you but IBM at $100 and sell it at $200 you are only paying a 15% tax on the $100 gain! If you don’t understand basic taxation principles, don’t waste our time with your posts. A little knowledge really is a dangerous thing.
Are capital gains taxes limited to stock purchases? What other areas do the capital gains tax laws apply? Should the laws be different depending on the asset?
In any type of capital gains you are taxed only on the money the original investment/purchase earned for you.
For example I buy a home for $125,000 three years ago and I sell it for $150,000 today and do not use the money to buy a new home (if I did buy a new home with the money I would not be taxed on it at all) I would pay less that 15% Capital Gains tax (the tax rate is progressive starting at 0% and ending at 15%) on the $25,000 I made on the original investment.
The same goes for land, stock, other investments etc. You are only taxed on the increase in value of the item you initially invested in. If you invest $100,000 and then sell it after 3 to 5 years (depending on the type of investment) for $150,000 you pay a tax on the $50,000 increase in value. If your original investment of $100,000 is later sold for $100,000 or less you do not pay 1 cent in capital Gains tax and you my be able to write off the loss in value on your other tax liabilities.
Thanks. I knew that. I pay Capital gains tax. There is a fair amount of ignorance (generally not chenard) on taxes on this board today.
BTW there are circumstance where you pay ordinary income tax rates on capital gains. Do you know what they are?
I just looked up the taxes on the IRS tax tables.
Income tax single %
50K 8,631 17.3
70K 13,631 19.5
100K 21,610 21.6
Romney is married, so the married table is closer to comparing apples to apples.
Income married %
50K 6,654 13.3
70K 9,756 13.9
100K 17,244 17.3
But this is the tax on taxable income. In reality your married individual making $70K has a standard deduction of $11,600 and 2 individual deductions of $3,700 each totaling $19,000. Tax of $6,804 will be paid on a taxable income of $51,000.
PERCENTAGE ACTUALLY PAID 9.7%
It’a actually worse, as you are paying FICA taxes of 7.4% (14.8% if you count your employer’s share, which you effectively pay) on earned income which taxes are not assessed on capital gains.
Possibly a true flat tax could be better? Every one pays the same amount, divide the federal budget by the total US population and everyone pays their fair share.
Or maybe a flat rate tax where everyone pays a certain percentage of their “income”, with no deductions. I’m not sure how people with no “income” will survive, but everyone pays a “fair share”.
Any other scheme is not fair, it is retribution for becoming sucessful.
For some reason the Liberals dont like the flat tax…… I like the idea, everyone pays the same percentage.
Why would I like that? I don’t use the taxpayers supported and built airports, I don’t use the taxpayer shipping ports, I have no foreign interests that the government needs to protect with life and treasure, I don’t need whole congressional committees to help me expand my business.
Please tell me what is fair about making me and other regular citizens pay for services we do not use or want?
I pay for services now I dont use, we all do,,, I’m talking about a flat tax on income…. Everyone pays the same percentage on money earned, I make 100 bucks I pay 10 bucks, you make 1000 bucks you pay 100 bucks, pretty simple, even a caveman would approve..
You make $100 bucks and pay $10 but can’t afford to use all the “services” the government provides for more wealthy folks who use those (taxpayer supported) services all the time… When was the last time you used a cargo port? When was the last time you got a sweetheart deal on a Federal lease? (of the communal property) when was the last time the president had to send troops into a foreign Nation to protect your business?
The people who use government services most frequently should pay a higher percentage for the privilege.
Why should someone making 100K a year pay a higher percentage… All should be equal… I really dont think someone who makes a 100K a year uses anymore govt services than one who makes 30K a year, I know I dont…
The problem you have with the so-called flat tax or fair tax is that you eventually end up with most if not all of the money in the hands of a few incredibly wealthy people. In effect you create a new royal caste system where a very small number of people end up with practically all the money.
For example I make $20,000 a year and pay $2,000 a year in taxes. I use the rest of my money just to survive, no investments or savings to improve my lot in life. You, on the other hand, make $2,000,000 a year and pay $200,000 a year in taxes. Unless you are foolish with your money you have extra money to invest in yourself (better schooling, healthcare etc) and your wealth keeps growing. Eventually you have more money and wealth then you could ever spend and I am still struggling just to afford the necessities of life.
Now Change the yearly income from $2 million to $200 million or $2 billion a year and you see how fast a very small super powerful group of people become American Royalty and the rest of us are back in a feudal system. This system has already been tried in Europe with disasterous consequences. There were 1000 years of a feudal system that mistreated 99% of the population.
Yes, a flat tax in it’s purest form is regressive.
I see your point, but it is their money, not mine, not yours… Just like everyone says we give money to big oil,,, It is actually a tax break on money they earned, their money, not mine , not yours…
There is no “communal property”. There is private and public property. A whole lot different. Communal property you would have access to 24/7 and you do not have access to government property without permission. You can be removed for trespassing at any time even if you had legal access.
Exactly, and what cheese is trying to worm out of is the ethics of a very wealthy class not paying their fair share. When 1% of the population owns 85% of the wealth there is an unethical redistribution of wealth upward. Cheese tries to justify this by claiming everybody except Cheese and the 1% are lazy, won’t work, receive illegal welfare payments and living immoral lives.
I don’t understand how a great and generous nation of people have arrived at this attitude but I do know conservative media is busy legitimizing the attitude. It’s sad and unhealthy.
And Human history shows that societies that have such an unequal wealth distribution fall victim to internal violence and revolution.
There are other taxes besides income tax. Want to talk about capital gains tax or estate taxes? Or we could talk about people like Mitt who don’t pay any income tax.
Capital gains taxes are federal income taxes and appear on your income tax form. Since 2007 the top 1% pay approx 40% of all Federal Income taxes. Mitt does pay income tax. I am surprised a liberal doesn’t know that.
That 40% comes mostly from taxing investments at 15%, making the tax rate actually lower for the wealthy in spite of the much touted high income bracket. As we finally saw when Mitt Romney released his tax returns he pays a lower over all rate than most middle income folks do.
Ummm I’m not certain of your point. The 40% statistic is a revenue number, not a tax rate.
I’ll rephrase the statement for clarification.
40% of all “income tax revenue” collected by the IRS comes from the top 1% of tax filers.
You appear to be trying to say that the inequality of wealth in the US is a good thing. I can’t discuss the fine points of taxation policy but I do know there has been a transfer of wealth upward until we have a dramatically increased class of people that live at or just above the poverty line and an equally dramatic reduction in the wealth and wages of the middle class. Whether you and the conservatives care to address this upward movement of wealth and the downward mobility of middle class income you know it exists and it will eventually strangle real democracy and in the long run prosperity for the country. Perhaps you don’t care, so long as you’ve got yours.
Not at all. I said no such thing. However, since YOU brought it up, Inequality of wealth merely is. It was not created by a transfer of wealth upward. No one sat at a computer and transferred some poor persons money from their account to Bill Gates account for instance. Gates created his wealth from a space where there was none before.
This notion of wealth transference is a false one in my opinion. Wealth is either created or destroyed. Gates created his wealth. The housing bubble and crushing debt and high energy costs is what has caused the decline of the middle class in my opinion. Wealth was destroyed. That is what skewed the numbers so radically.
That is not to say there was not malfeasance on the part of some banks or some stock brokerage that made an illegal killing. These people have hopefully paid the price of breaking the laws.
The middle class was also overly leveraged. They borrowed too much, accumulated too much personal debt and when the price of their homes dropped could no longer get “money out” in refi’s. They withdrew from buying things they could no longer afford and the downward spiral continued.
Again though there was no transference of wealth. Only in isolated instances did anyone benefit from the housing decline. I didn’t when the value of my house declined. The thing is that the security of wealth, even over education, inoculates you from the full brunt of any downturn.
I think it is really unfair of you to suggest I have no compassion. I would wager that if you saw my donation schedule on my tax return you’d take back your comment. That is if you were truly fair.
Your denial of the transfer of wealth sounds more like a justification. And economic studies tracking wealth show you are wrong.
Tell me, how did that money get from poor persons A account to rich persons B account?
Nice bait, still sort of wiggling, but no thanks. Maybe some other time.
Inequality is directly related to tax policies. As the top marginal rate, the capital gains rate (and vast expansion of what is now called capital gains) and the estate tax rates have declined, inequality has skyrocketed. This began in 1981 and the only way working stiffs could keep up with rising costs of living was to borrow.
People borrowed because they wanted a second home, better cars, vacations in Aruba and two flat screen TV’s because they were feeling flush not to confront the high cost of bananas. For the better part of two decades the cost of apparel and food was relatively flat. Only in the last few years has that been not been true true but that is as a result of high energy prices, particularly oil. Which I believe is a major reason we still have millions of unemployed.
I still don’t know how a tax rate can move money from poor person A’s account to rich person B’s account.
It doesn’t move money from one account to another and you are being dishonest to try that argument.
As the rich and very rich are allowed to keep more of the money they make of the labor of others (and don’t tell me that the top 1% actually work for a living. No one works hard enough or long enough hours to make millions/billions by their labor alone) they are able to use that money to influence politicians to serve their interests first and foremost (ie. make them even richer). They can then pay smart writers to write Op-Eds to make it seem like they are struggling to make ends meet just like everyone else or attack the less fortunate as the reason why the country is in the shape it is in.
Every advanced nation uses a progressive tax system because it is the best and fairest tax system we currently have. The rich stay rich (very few rich people have been taxed into the poor house) but not so rich that they gain total control of society and the poor and middle class can get help to either maintain their current social status or improve their social status.
Ask the europeans who lived under a feudal system how good their lives were and then tell me why it appears to me that the rich want to go back to a feudal type system with most of the wealth locked up in the hands of a very small number of incredibly rich powerful families.
While your post is interesting it does nothing to address the question of the origins of inequality.
But to address what I think is your question:
The OECD calls the US tax system the most progressive in the world.
This is their data they base the statement on.
http://www.mrswing.com/articles/U_S_Has_Most_Progressive_Tax_System_for_OECD.html
Here is a link to the OECD… I don’t spend alot of time on this site but every once in a while it has an interesting study it presents.
http://www.oecd.org/home/0,2987,en_2649_201185_1_1_1_1_1,00.html
You were talking about income tax alone. Now you are including capital gains tax. That’s changing the ground rules. I believe you called Penzance a little weasel for doing the same thing.
I did not call penzance anything of the kind. fwteagles was talking about one tax then another…
As for Capital Gains Taxes: They ARE income taxes. They appear on you 1040 you file. The same as interest income tax or any other tax.
In the United States, individuals and corporations pay income tax on the net total of all their capital gains just as they do on other sorts of income. Capital gains are generally taxed at a preferential rate in comparison to ordinary income (26 U.S.C. §1(h)). This is intended to provide incentives for investors to make capital investments, to fund entrepreneurial activity, and to compensate for the effect of inflation and the corporate income tax. The amount an investor is taxed depends on both his or her tax bracket, and the amount of time the investment was held before being sold. Short-term capital gains are taxed at the investor’s ordinary income tax rate, and are defined as investments held for a year or less before being sold.
What you don’t know on the topic is stunning.
This has been a “talking point” since the days of Ronald Reagan. What would impress me is the precentage figure they pay in ALL U.S. taxes.
My favorite company.the one that keeps me fed and clothed paid NO,ZERO, NADA in Federal Tax in 2010. That’s the goose-egg. That year they were the most profitable Corporation on the planet!
I assume you mean GE. The company that lobbied for and received extensive tax breaks that allowed them to pay zero income taxes as part of the Obama stimulus package. They created no new net domestic jobs but created about 30k in China.
But the question was who paid personal income taxes. Most revenue comes from personal income taxes. the top 1% paid around 40%.
since they own 85% of the assets in the US, they should pay 85%
The top rate for a couple making $388,351 and above is 35% That means that once you get above that figure you are outside of the “fairness category.
Bogus. Tax rates are computed on income not wealth.
You are smarter than that.
How can anyone send the IRS a building, which as you know constitutes wealth?
The same way I send my town government “a building” they assess worth and tax it.
If everyone were to pay a percentage of the value of an owned piece of equipment or property, one presumes you would have to sell it to someone. Who would that be,presuming all people with money are continually hounded to pay a wealth tax?
There are some European countries that tax a person not just on their income but also on their wealth, I believe England and Germany are two of the countries.
The way it works is if you have wealth over a certain amount you pay a small percentage of tax based on your net worth. This is only applied to those whom we affectionately call the 1%ers. It is a way of trying to stop the repeat of over 1000 years of the European fuedal system
Please provide actual information for a claim like that. “I believe”…. doesn’t quite make it.
Exactly. Cheesecake likes to pretend that federal income taxes are the entire tax burden. It’s a convenient way to pick which numbers look best in order to push his agenda.
If the topic is Federal Income taxes it only makes sense to talk about Federal Income taxes. Jeesh.
Follow the thread from the beginning.. It may help.
I know that, but what remains is that it’s just a convenient way of distorting the issue of taxation. It’s relevant when you start trying to use statistics to target people as free-loaders, when it reality different taxes impact individuals differently. So claiming x pays x percentage of whatever tax is hardly illuminating — it’s distortion.
Tell me, what percentage of you income did you pay in sales tax last year?
Not until you tell me what specific part of Obama’s statement/Holder’s letter denied judicial review ;P
It didn’t but I never mentioned that you did as a diversionary tactic. I only referred to to Obama’s attack.
Your turn. What percentage of your income went to sales tax?
You compared it to denying judicial review. Whether you said it was exactly that or near that, you still made the comparison and coupled the two.
No I didn’t. Never.
“That is what Activist means and THAT is exactly what Obama wants the justices to do. He is asking that the justices become activist. You know what? Obama does not have the right to pressure the court. That is what Hugo Chavez does in Venezuela as he shut down their court. What does it say for American policy in other countries where we are trying to build an independent judiciary that an American president can decide to throw that all away because he may politically embarrassed? “
I did not compare it to denying judicial revue because he can’t. What he did do was pressure the court in a manner like Hugo Chavez did early in his reign. I was saying that what Obama was pushing Justices to become activist.
I am not sure how you got denying Judicial revue out of that statement but you did. weird.
And you still couldn’t specifically point to which part of his statement/Holder’s letter did what you claimed it to do. Weird.
I never addressed Holders letter.
Regardless, you still haven’t substantiated your claims.
What claims????
Your characterizations of Obama’s statements a entirely unsubstantiated. You can point to all sorts of others saying things, but nothing in the source material.
Facts are distorting only to Liberals
Here’s a “fact” the largest tax in this nation is paid by the poor and middle classes, that is the hidden tax paid when the government devalues the dollar. The rich escape this “tax” by moving their money abroad, buying gold art, antiques, or real estate, the poor just see that their contracted wages no longer buy what they did in the past.
“Facts are distorting only to Liberals”
A) That doesn’t even make sense. Were you trying to say, “Only liberals distort facts.”? Or “Facts are only disconcerting to liberals.”? “Distort” means to bend out of it’s proper shape, or in the case of a fact, to make inaccurate; accordingly, facts can only be distorted by others, they can’t cause others to be distorted. Grammar fail.
B) Liberals aren’t the ones who hate and refuse to acknowledge inconvenient facts. Conservatives do that. Liberals embrace facts, and if those facts prove our beliefs wrong, we change our beliefs accordingly.
Flat, if you ever choose to get an advanced degree, English would not be your best choice. I’d stay away from political science as well.
The top ten% control 85% of this country’s wealth. They should pay 85% of the taxes.
last time I checked the guy working for daily wages even very poor folks contribute far more to this nation in sweat equity than the generational millionaires who inherited the wealth from daddy and simply sit on it.
Thanks for trying to set Mr. Flat straight. The operative word being ‘trying’. Flat doesn’t take kindly to people with information not generated by the conservative noise machine.
…which is almost as loud amd misinformed as the liberal/progressive noise machine.
but more accurate.
Many of the American Progressive Movement adherents believed in Eugenics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
Merriam – Websters online dictionary definition c of Liberalism:
“c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties; specifically : such a philosophy that considers government as a crucial instrument for amelioration of social inequities (as those involving race, gender, or class)”
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberalism
A mind is like a parachute, it must be open in order to function….now look in the mirror
Oooooo Brilliant repartee!
Very true! And those with open minds are called “liberals.”
How do you tax wealth?
My “wealth” is taxed just fine. Let me see: I pay tax each year on the value of my vehicle. I pay tax on the value of my home. If I have enough to start a savings account, which I don’t, I am taxed on any income I make on that money. With all the hanky panky that the rich get away with in regards to hiding, obscuring, and registering their “wealth” in places I have no access to, I bet I pay more tax on my wealth than most of the proverbial wealthy.
How about this” you tax investments over $250,000 the same way the government taxes residential property. You pay what the investment is worth on the day the taxes are assessed.
What % of millionaires create their wealth versus inheritance? 23% of millionaries inherit their wealth.
…and so… 23% of millionaires pay nothing but 15% capital gains tax while their auto mechanics can pay up to 35% of their earned income? That’s fair?
You are talking only about the wealthy that have inherited !00% of their wealth and you are correct that’s 23 % of the wealthy. What you aren’t saying is that most of the other 67% have inherited about 50% of their wealth.
Mining is an incredibly irresponsible industry. They need more oversight and regulations not fewer. There is nothing wrong with mining done right and responsibly. There is a great deal wrong with unrestricted and unregulated mining.
SOL,
It should tell you that we’ve made the transition from Constitutional Republic to socialism and the last stop will be Communism, and then ” ALL HAIL KING OBAMA “.
WILLIAM,
Communism = Democrat. Glad I could help.
LAURI,
You and the rest are major confused. The oil companies receive ZERO government subsidies, And for your idea about energy efficient homes I say ” Not On My Tax Dollar “.
FRANK,
I’m proud to be an ” Out Of Touch Republican ” The alternative is far worse!
Re: Sol–you really belong in a rubber room with that answer.
Re: William– see above comment.
Re: Lauri– For one the oil companies are able to deduct royalty payments to foreign countries
for the oil they are drilling for, from their United States taxes. If you don’t call that
subsides then I don’t know what it is called.
Re: Frank–Keep on staying out of touch and you’ll then be wondering what happened in Nov.
after the Teapublicans are send home to continue their beating on women.
Some people never learn. Or are resistant to factual arguments. Maybe due to their education?
I wonder if you really believe yourself. Or are you just entertaining us?
Trolling is the operative word;)
Paranoid much? The “literals” love to throw around words like socialism and communism but I don’t honestly think that they have clue what these words really mean.
The oil companies receive BILLIONS in government subsidies. This is fact, not liberal propaganda.
Tell me does the government cut big oil a check? Just curious… Is that what a subsidy is?
Tax breaks for the oil industry amounted to $21 billion for an industry where the top earner, Exxon, had profits of $354 billion in 2011. They paid no taxes on those profits. You can call it anything you want.
Can you tell me what those “tax breaks” are… What do you mean? .. Are they tax breaks subsides, credits, a check or what?? Do you know???
Thanks, the bait looks tempting, but I think I’ll just leave you and your dead worm hanging.
It is because you have fallen for Obama’s press conference understanding of what they are.
While you on the other hand have a neutral and unbiased understanding of economics built from reading well researched, peer juried, historically correct books, journals and articles. BWAHAHAH!
No But I know what these s0-called tax breaks actually are and you don’t have the foggiest notion. Its not economics books, that holds the answer but a tax return.
You don’t have the slightest clue what “socialism” and “communism” actually mean. Are you actually so poorly informed that you really believe the nonsense you’ve written?
Sol–now ask your class to explain how their Medicare is paid for.
I find it incredibly selfish that so many in the the over 60 crowd continue to vote for more for themselves when they can clearly see that the younger generation is being crushed by debt. Medicare is now broke. There are not enough workers to pay enough in Medicare taxes to support the retiring baby boomer generation. And it seems that our current leaders are more than happy to just let it keep on going until it all crumbles, rather than make important decisions right now.
Think you better do a little research. Medicare is not broke. Neither is social security. But those who want to privatize so they can make profits on that money sure would like you to think so. And, you probably do not know that the Medicare tax that you now have deducted from YOUR paycheck only pays for hospitalization. All other health care is paid for by the individual in a monthly premium that comes with a co-pay and deductible and prescription drugs are not covered. That is another policy you must purchase. Right now as a senior I pay $1200 + deductible + co-pay a year for my yearly skin cancer check up and my annual physical which amounts to probably less than half of what I pay in. So not all seniors are a drain on the system. I continue to work so I also continue to pay into the system. Many seniors do. So lay off the scapegoating of your elders. It smacks of ageism
What is ageism? I call a spade a spade. The Democrats under Obama have been railing against Republican budgets claiming that they want to do away with grannie’s health care insurance. And the AARP utilizes its clout to defeat any attempt to reform Medicare and SS. The unsustainability of these programs has been repeatedly reported by agencies such as the Board of Trustees for SS and Medicare and the CBO. We knew back in the 1980s that they were not sustainable once the baby boomers hit retirement age. But all attempts to reform these programs have been blocked by grandstanding politicos who care more about getting the senior vote than they do the economic health of this country.
See my response above as well.
Yes, yes., we’ve all heard the Republicans screeching “unsustainable” since 1980. And yet, here we are 32 years later and SS is still going strong. Could there be some other reason for all the screeching and propagandizing? Privatization? Hmmmmm.
Okay keep that head in the sand. I hope it is at least in the sand someplace nice–such as York Beach, or Acadia.
Back in 1980 economists were projecting what would happen when that baby boom generation retired. It would have been a lot easier to take some measures then than it will be now that baby boomers are retiring.
It’s true that both parties — remember, both sides — have been dragging their feet. And there is a real philosophical difference about how to fix the problem, which is still some distance down the road, by the way. But that’s part of the problem. Congress doesn’t do much until there is a crisis. When the crisis is upon us, then they’ll start to really hurl insults at one another, and blame the other party, and then, just maybe, they’ll do something.
The heads you see in the sand are people trying to get away from 32 years of Republican phony hysteria trying to create a ground swell for privatization. Heads are only in the sand during the Republican screeching.
You do not know what you pay in?
I pay $100 a month and have not had more than $100 paid out in the four years I’ve been paying in.
Same with car insurance, homeowners’ insurance, health insurance … That’s how it works.
Neither SS or Medicare are broken. Read something besides conservative propaganda and educate yourself.
Okay, I read the report from the SS and Medicare Board of Trustees, plus several other evaluations. The current state of Medicare Part A is that the benefits paid out have exceeded the tax money brought in. That trend will continue with the trust fund expected to be exhausted in 2024–assuming that no changes are made from the current law.
Medicare Part B is expected to consume almost double the amount of GDP it consumes now in about 30 years.
Social Security doesn’t even exist, except in IOUs from the Federal Government. And that government is over $15 trillion in debt. But you can keep believing that SS benefits won’t be on the chopping block when the skyrocketing debt leads to economic crisis in the US. Whatever gets you through the night, milady.
The operative phrase being “assuming that no changes are made”. Why are you assuming the no changes will be made. When changes are needed there are several things that can be made to sustain both programs. It comes down to willingness to make the changes. Right now the only change on the table is to privatize SS and end Medicare. Neither of those will be acceptable to the American public.
Nobody is suggesting an outright privatization of Social Security and nobody is suggesting we end Medicare.
The Republicans have repeatedly suggested various reforms to make both programs sustainable over the long run. In return, they have been accused of wanting to starve granny, put her out on the street and take away her health care.
Then the Democrats convince people that if only the rich would pay their share–we wouldn’t have any budget problem at all.
Back in 2001 when I was sitting in Macroeconomics, the professor gave a balance presentation on the different views of our national debt. At that time, it was realistic to make the argument that our debt was such a small percentage of our GDP that there was no reason to be concerned. Then there was Warren Rudman running all over saying the wolf is at the door–end the deficit spending!
A mere 11 years later and our debt has increased by…I think about 10 trillion dollars. And it is looking like it will keep going at the pace of a trillion per year for the foreseeable future, assuming Ryan’s budget is not enacted. Our credit rating has dropped for the first time ever.
Can we please, pretty please now have an honest discussion about the big players in our budget: defense and entitlements? If we had had that honest discussion 10 years ago—it wouldn’t have been so hard.
“Nobody is suggesting an outright privatization of Social Security ”
Well then what was Bush trying to do if it wasn’t privatizing SS?
Our credit rating dropped because the Republicans created a crisis over raising the debt ceiling.
Ryan’s budget is a complete sham. Even the Republicans are backing away from it.
The reason for the escalation of our debt goes to Bush’s 8 years and to the recession that ensued as a direct result of his policies. No one has said that if the rich paid their fair share we would have no problems. The reason that we cannot have an honest conversation about defense and entitlements is that Republicans have NOT been honest brokers since President Obama was elected. He tried to work with them and finally learned that it was a complete waste of time. I along with many others are glad to see him wake up to that unfortunate reality.
Have a happy weekend.
Bush thought unlimited military spending using his buddies expensive private corporations to fight his war was a really hot idea. Did you talk to Bush about having a discussion on military spending. Nope. Did you march against invading Iraq or did you think they had WMDs (often spelled 0-i-l)?
If anyone is interested in factual information on Social Security, this is from Paul Krugman, a Noble Laureate in economics.
Social Security is a government program supported by a dedicated tax, like highway maintenance. Now you can say that assigning a particular tax to a particular program is merely a fiction, but in fact such assignments have both legal and political force. If Ronald Reagan had said, back in the 1980s, “Let’s increase a regressive tax that falls mainly on the working class, while cutting taxes that fall mainly on much richer people,” he would have faced a political firestorm. But because the increase in the regressive payroll tax was recommended by the Greenspan Commission to support Social Security, it was politically in a different box – you might even call it a lockbox – from Reagan’s tax cuts.The purpose of that tax increase was to maintain the dedicated tax system into the future, by having Social Security’s assigned tax take in more money than the system paid out while the baby boomers were still working, then use the trust fund built up by those surpluses to pay future bills. Viewed in its own terms, that strategy was highly successful.The date at which the trust fund will run out, according to Social Security Administration projections, has receded steadily into the future: 10 years ago it was 2029, now it’s 2042. As Kevin Drum, Brad DeLong, and others have pointed out, the SSA estimates are very conservative, and quite moderate projections of economic growth push the exhaustion date into the indefinite future.But the privatizers won’t take yes for an answer when it comes to the sustainability of Social Security. Their answer to the pretty good numbers is to say that the trust fund is meaningless, because it’s invested in U.S. government bonds. They aren’t really saying that government bonds are worthless; their point is that the whole notion of a separate budget for Social Security is a fiction. And if that’s true, the idea that one part of the government can have a positive trust fund while the government as a whole is in debt does become strange.But there are two problems with their position.The lesser problem is that if you say that there is no link between the payroll tax and future Social Security benefits – which is what denying the reality of the trust fund amounts to – then Greenspan and company pulled a fast one back in the 1980s: they sold a regressive tax switch, raising taxes on workers while cutting them on the wealthy, on false pretenses. More broadly, we’re breaking a major promise if we now, after 20 years of high payroll taxes to pay for Social Security’s future, declare that it was all a little joke on the public.The bigger problem for those who want to see a crisis in Social Security’s future is this: if Social Security is just part of the federal budget, with no budget or trust fund of its own, then, well, it’s just part of the federal budget: there can’t be a Social Security crisis. All you can have is a general budget crisis. Rising Social Security benefit payments might be one reason for that crisis, but it’s hard to make the case that it will be central.But those who insist that we face a Social Security crisis want to have it both ways. Having invoked the concept of a unified budget to reject the existence of a trust fund, they refuse to accept the implications of that unified budget going forward. Instead, having changed the rules to make the trust fund meaningless, they want to change the rules back around 15 years from now: today, when the payroll tax takes in more revenue than SS benefits, they say that’s meaningless, but when – in 2018 or later – benefits start to exceed the payroll tax, why, that’s a crisis. Huh?I don’t know why this contradiction is so hard to understand, except to echo Upton Sinclair: it’s hard to get a man to understand something when his salary (or, in the current situation, his membership in the political club) depends on his not understanding it. But let me try this one more time, by asking the following: What happens in 2018 or whenever, when benefits payments exceed payroll tax revenues?The answer, very clearly, is nothing.The Social Security system won’t be in trouble: it will, in fact, still have a growing trust fund, because of the interest that the trust earns on its accumulated surplus. The only way Social Security gets in trouble is if Congress votes not to honor U.S. government bonds held by Social Security. That’s not going to happen. So legally, mechanically, 2018 has no meaning.Now it’s true that rising benefit costs will be a drag on the federal budget. So will rising Medicare costs. So will the ongoing drain from tax cuts. So will whatever wars we get into. I can’t find a story under which Social Security payments, as opposed to other things, become a crucial budgetary problem in 2018.What we really have is a looming crisis in the General Fund. Social Security, with its own dedicated tax, has been run responsibly; the rest of the government has not. So why are we talking about a Social Security crisis?
Not many people take Krugman very seriously these days. He was right once got recognized by a bunch of Europeans and been wrong ever since. He is even reduced to begging for White House invites these days.
Look no further than he has to resort to budget tricks as explanations in order to say Social Security is self sustaining.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
As usual you spin to your cause. Your take on Krugman is right out of the right wing agenda.
He is respected around the world , but I do not expect you to accept that. I was expecting uninformed comments on what I posted. I am not at all surprised that you were the first. I have noticed in your many comments that you are often in error and never in doubt.
Believe what you will, but Social Security is NOT in dire straits, that is a ploy by the right wingers who want to ‘starve the beast’. And the ‘debt scare’ is more fear mongering to that same end.
Before you respond to me, and I sincerely hope that you do not, I have not said that the debt is not a serious problem. I do say that austerity at the expense of expanding the economy i.e. jobs is destructive and even the most conservative of economists in this country say the same thing.
Social Security is not in trouble, neither are Fannie, Fredie and Solyndra.
Nice try to out-deny the deniers….
You seem to misunderstand sarcasm.
All of these entities are dead unless something can be done to save them.
Everything cheese posts is out of the extreme right wing agenda. “Everything is going to ruin and it’s all the fault of Democrats. The only way we can save ourselves is to revert to the corporate lawlessness of the Gilded Age” It’s class warfare at its finest and most vicious.
A political position better known as “I’ve got mine, Jack”
Poke!!
Oh, really classy, cheesy.
Agreed ! Vicious and often petty.
I know who you are….. :)
Social Security expenditures exceeded the program’s non-interest income in 2010 for the first time since 1983. The $49 billion
deficit last year (excluding interest income) and $46 billion projected deficit in 2011 are in large part due to the weakened
economy and to
downward income adjustments that correct for excess payroll tax revenue credited to the trust funds in earlier
years. This deficit is expected to shrink to about $20 billion for years 2012-2014 as the economy strengthens. After 2014, cash
deficits are expected to grow rapidly as the number of beneficiaries continues to grow at a substantially faster rate than the
number of covered workers. Through 2022, the annual cash deficits will be made up by redeeming trust fund assets from the
General Fund of the Treasury. Because these redemptions will be less than interest earnings, trust fund balances will continue
to grow. After 2022, trust fund assets will be redeemed in amounts that exceed interest earnings until trust fund reserves are
exhausted in 2036, one year earlier than was projected last year. ~~~ SSA Board of Trustees
Cheese: You left out this part of the report.
“The projected point at which the combined Trust Funds will be exhausted comes in 2037 – the same as the estimate in last year’s report. At that time, there will be sufficient tax revenue coming in to pay about 78 percent of benefits.”Why would you want to leave out the good news from the report?
How is that good news?
Because SS isn’t about to go down the tubes tomorrow? Because there is time to figure out something more intelligent than privatizing SS? Because we have time to muffle conservative hype telling kids they will never see any of their SS money when they retire?
I didn’t say there wasn’t.
You know of course, there is no real “trust fund” this is just a label for the debt we (taxpayers) owe this program.
Yes…. But those are IOUs against future tax receipts.
He may have been correct, never right, in the opinion of the Europeans, but look at their problems. Do we really want to follow their lead?
When the message contradicts, shoot the messenger. Always a good temporary measure.
It was our universal poster that was extolling Krugman as an economic God. That makes him a fair target.
Thanks for Krugman’s analysis. Perhaps he would like to address the Board of Trustees for SS and Medicare? Because they do not view it quite his way.
I think that he does address the naysayers in this post. Perhaps you might want to visit his blog. Even tho it is titled ‘The Conscience of a Liberal’ you may find it worthwhile.
Do we really want to have the SS system to be in the same condition of our roads?
If you are talking about federal roads, like the Interstate Highway System, they’re actually pretty good. Occasional problems? Sure. But generally pretty good. I never expect perfection in life.
The way things seem to be going, there will be no chopping block. the whole economy will go bust and everyone will be in the same foundering boat
Much of the problem comes from those that are under 60 demanding their own, now.
That being said I thank those that make SS and Medicare as solvent as it is.
wandini, “crushed by debt”? really? I’m still paying into the system. Bush 43 lowered my taxes (although he gave the biggest tax cuts to his billionaire friends), and Obama has continued to cut my taxes a couple of more times. Our taxes are much lower than those in Europe and Canada, and yet the English, French, Swedes, and Canadians aren’t even “crushed by debt.” I’d be very willing to go back to the higher taxes — and prosperity — of the Clinton years. If we want to get on the road toward balancing the budget, we need more revenue. But, of course, almost all of the Republicans have sworn a pledge to lobbyist Grover Norquist, also known as “the Dark Lord.” So nothing can ever get done.
Of course, if you want more workers paying into the system, there are those immigrants from down south, eager to work and pay taxes ….
Frank John–spare me. The Republicans are not the ones out of touch. They are the realists–or at least the closest to realists that our current political spectrum exhibits. The Democrats, particularly the more liberal end, are walking around with their heads in a bag, or a cloud…whatever.
Huh? Republicans are not out of touch?
I have to tell you, from a woman’s point of view, the Republicans are so far out of touch they look like they are marching straight back to the 18th century.
You can speak for all women????
I thought that all women had minds of their own.
Pay attention, Larry. That’s not what the words say.
18 points out of touch among women if you listen to N.B.C. 16 points behind if you are a Fox News subscriber.
She speaks for every woman that I know and that includes my Republican friends.
She used the word woman where she should have used m00nbat.
Been listening to dreary old Howie, again Problem? Find something positive for a change and you’ll be happier.
Yeah….see? you don’t believe it either, do you?
Everyone knows how far out of touch Romney is — so, taking a cue from Carl Rove’s playbook, Romney is now saying that President Obama is out of touch. Take your greatest weaknesses, and project them on to the other guy.
In my opinion, they are both out of touch with the average American. And it looks like that is what we’ll have to decide in November: which one is less out of touch than the other? Sigh.
You hit the nail on the head great one……:)
Well all I can say is if you like the Republican platform you are going to love tight corsets,hoop skirts, arsenic to make you look pale and delicate, scrub boards, no antibiotics and no rights.
You really believe that Republicans want to dictate dress for women, get rid of their washing machines, deprive them of medicine, take away their right to vote? That is so unreasonable that I find myself in a position of not wanting to carry on debating with you.
Since when was it a Republican policy to force women to wear corsets, hoop skirts, or maintain pale complexions?
That’s just bonkers.
Sorry I forgot how literal some are and left out the “Sarcasm ahead” warning. I’ll try to remember you need advance notice.
Which confirms my intention of showing that you really don’t believe that about Republicans and that you are unwilling to argue on what Republicans actually do believe.
Of course you don’t really believe Republicans want to force women into restrictive dress etc…
But you do believe Republicans are “waging a war” on women, intent on taking away women’s rights–perhaps you even believe most Republicans think women should be “barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen” (which, as an aside, is a pretty awesome place to be sometimes).
And all of that just isn’t true. Republicans are not racist, sexist, homophobes, screw the poor, throw granny to the curb, all power to the wealthy. Not that one, or more, of those types don’t exist in the GOP ranks; but they also exist in the Democrat ranks. People are people.
Of course bearing and raising kids is awesome. It needs to be a choice not a requirement.
Last I looked there was no breeding requirement anywheres!
Look harder.
Republicans aren’t those things? I must have been fooled this winter when I watched the Republican Presidential debates. Between what the candidates were spewing and what the audience was cheering for…
She was making a joke.
:-)
Thanks for making me smile!
:-)
Glad it made you smile, but it was an utter falsehood.
A joke is not usually literally true. Notice the joke I made elsewhere on this page, at the expense of communism. I’ll repeat it for your benefit:
“What happens when communism comes to the desert? For a long time, nothing. But eventually there is a shortage of sand.”
Now, is that literally true? No. Lenin would probably say, just as you said, “That’s an utter falsehood.” But then Lenin — and you apparently — can’t see the joke. Lighten up a little, please.
I disagree with you about the Republicans and Democrats being equally out of touch. Across this country Republicans are putting forth and passing legislation harmful to women. Virginia, Arizona, Oklahoma are a few. These bills range from creating difficulties, and I do not mean who pays, in obtaining legal abortions, ‘personhood’ bills and pay discrimination bills. Here is the latest from Wisconsin.
WASHINGTON — A Wisconsin law that made it easier for victims of wage discrimination to have their day in court was repealed on Thursday, after Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) quietly signed the bill.The 2009 Equal Pay Enforcement Act was meant to deter employers from discriminating against certain groups by giving workers more avenues via which to press charges. Among other provisions, it allows individuals to plead their cases in the less costly, more accessible state circuit court system, rather than just in federal court.In November, the state Senate approved SB 202, which rolled back this provision. On February, the Assembly did the same. Both were party-line votes in Republican-controlled chambers.
And here are some more attempts. I am surprised that you do not realize what the Republicans are doing to this country and how they have gone so far to the right. Maybe you do not want to know. Even as a liberal Democrat, which I proudly am, there was a time that I would have voted for a Republican. Not now, no way , no how.
1) Republicans not only want to reduce women’s access to abortion care, they’re actually trying to redefine rape. After a major backlash, they promised to stop. But they haven’t yet. Shocker.
2) A state legislator in Georgia wants to change the legal term for victims of rape, stalking, and domestic violence to “accuser.” But victims of other less gendered crimes, like burglary, would remain “victims.”
3) In South Dakota, Republicans proposed a bill that couldmake it legal to murder a doctor who provides abortion care. (Yep, for real.)
4) Republicans want to cut nearly a billion dollars of food and other aid to low-income pregnant women, mothers, babies, and kids.
5) In Congress, Republicans have a bill that would let hospitals allow a woman to die rather than perform an abortion necessary to save her life.
6) Maryland Republicans ended all county money for a low-income kids’ preschool program. Why? No need, they said.Women should really be home with the kids, not out working.
7) And at the federal level, Republicans want to cut that same program, Head Start, by $1 billion. That means over 200,000 kids could lose their spots in preschool.
8) Two-thirds of the elderly poor are women, and Republicans are taking aim at them too. A spending bill would cut funding for employment services, meals, and housing for senior citizens.
9) Congress just voted for a Republican amendment to cut all federal funding from Planned Parenthood health centers,one of the most trusted providers of basic health care and family planning in our country.
10) And if that wasn’t enough, Republicans are pushing toeliminate all funds for the only federal family planning program. (For humans. But Republican Dan Burton has a bill to provide contraception for wild horses. You can’t make this stuff up).
And you haven’t even touched the anti-labor legislation.
Sol Goldman
Here’s a senior who also has graduated from University with his hand up. You can take your god damned Social Security too!!!
William Ward
People seem to fail to grasp that communism and socialism are economic systems like capitalism. They are not antonyms for freedom, democracy or republicanism.
Elizabeth Smedberg
You’re dreaming. Our Governor just signed a bill giving 300k to a private company to study (once again) the fabled “east west highway. This will be a private road benefiting fewer than 1% of Maine’s population and it will have prohibitive tolls making its use for passenger cars out-of-reach for all but a few wealthy people. Until he’s gone we will be run by the folks who contribute to his campaigns.
Laurie Osher
Oil companies, the big ones, make from 5 to 7 cents a gallon on gasoline sales. Do you think they will personally eat the loss of subsidies??? My business sense tells me they will pass this “price increase’ on to the consumer.
LeRoy Bandy
I agree wholeheartedly. My visits to Pitcher Oklahoma, Centrillia Pennsylvania, and West Virginia’s once majestic mountains underscores your point. Those regulationa were placed on the industry for good reason. Leave them in place.
Frank JohnYou want me to believe that the Republicans care less about us than the Democrats? I have this great bridge my grandfather left me, I can’t use it anymore having moved permanently to Maine. It crosses the East River from Brooklyn to Manhattan, and carries over one million vehicles a day. I’ll sell it to you cheap but you better hurry….there’s a line.
Harry Communism is an antonym for democracy at least in the thesaurus I have.
The big oil subsidies are not what most people think. The government does not write a check to big oil. The susubsidies are given in the form of depreciation on equipment that has already performed its function.
Example: a piece of equipment is on a 7 years schedule normally however after being installed a non-producing site it becomes useless. The oil companies then under certain circumstances are are allowed to depreciate it at 100% instead of the normal 7-10-15 year period.
The politics of our time has allowed normal depreciation to become called a subsidy.
As for the High-tolls on the proposed east-west highway. Do you normally drive an 18-wheeler to the corner store?
You take an awful lot for-granted in your condescending reply.
I read Karl Heinrich Marx extensively. That is the way I discover information. I don’t turn to a thesaurus. My father was an executive for Standard Oil of New York for over forty years (Read my post again,,, I’m NOT opposed to giving oil companies the same tax breaks enjoyed by other businesses.) According to the D.O.T. passenger cars will pay $25 to $50 to use the private road.
Harry, I was just trying to be informative not condescending and i did not disagree with your oil pricing assessment.
I would be interested in where you got the DOT toll-pricing estimates for the highway. Do you have a link?
I called them on the telephone – 624-3000 –
Thanks
Cars will not be forced to drive the road. They can take the roads they take today to get to where they want to go. But, it may be that even with the tolls, it will be cheaper in gas and/or time to take the toll road.
Try driving to NH on Route 1 from, say, Camden, on a summer day, and then tell me you would not be willing to pay the $5 in tolls to drive the turnpike. I expect on most days, I’d be willing to pay two or three times that just to avoid the clogged traffic of Route 1. Not joyously willing, but still willing.
BUT would you be willing to pay five times that? That is the proposal.
Your thesaurus is simply wrong.
http://thesaurus.com/browse/communism?s=t
“Shaker Village was unabashedly idealistic in its celebration of manual labor, community democracy, and folk culture.”[2] – Robert Paul Wollf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaker_Village_Work_Group#refWolff2009 – third paragraph under: “Preservation of Shaker architecture and culture”
They also apparently invented the circular saw and the clothes pin…what up with that?
And the flat broom.
Maybe Jesus came back?
Oh yeah!
Just planted some sweet basil and green peppers from seed packets, another Shaker innovation.
I wonder why Funk & Wagnalls says they stopped admitting new members in 1964?
I never said your thesarus didn’t exist. I said it was wrong.
Ok Send them a correction. :)
My thesaurus shows both communism and Communism, and the only places that I found communism and democracy in the same section was under cooperation and I found both Democracy and Communism under forms of government.
demo=people crat=rule democracy=people rule
dico = I say dictatorship=rule by decree of one persona
dictatorship is the opposite of democracy
Communism is an ecocomic principle. The opposite of communism is uncontrolled capitalism leading to monopoly. Both are unworkable.
You need to work that out with the Duma I guess.
The Soviet Union was initially organized politically through economic units called “Soviets”.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism – definition of Fascism: “1
often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition 2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control ”
http://www.pressherald.com/news/advisory-group-exempted-from-access-law-_2011-03-09.html – Governor LePage exempts his new business advisory panel from the Freedom of Information Law
http://bangor-launch.newspackstaging.com/2012/04/06/politics/panel-rejects-lepage-move-to-eliminate-mpbn-funding/ – Governor LePage tries to cut state funding for MPBN
https://bangor-launch.newspackstaging.com/2011/07/20/opinion/gov-lepage-stacks-the-deck-to-avoid-the-legislature/ – Governor LePage stacks task force designed so he can force people to eat from dumpsters.
Other than I know nothing about the Norridgewock dump, good letters all.
Mr. John – of all the problems facing this country, having too many rich people is certainly not one of them.
And yet, that’s not what the letter is about. It’s about no or little growth in a significant portion of the population, and massive growth for the already super rich. It’s a bit silly to pretend that our government policies don’t contribute to that.
Mr. Ward,
You are correct communism is not totalitarian, in theory at least. But to make communism work in the real world it will become so.
In any form of government there must be leadership, with that position of leadership comes power, with power corruption must become an issue. This is human nature at work.
Further if everyone gets the sane benefits from society, the reason to produce any more than everyone else is destroyed.
This has been the case in every instance that communism has been tried, beyond small groups with a very dedicated membership. Religious groups are the only organizations that I can think of in which it has worked, but they usually only last for a couple generations before they die out. Not exactly a formula for a lasting freedom and liberty.
William Ward,
Communism is what China currently operates under. It isn’t any better than our current system of corporatism, or fascism.
I just have to laugh, you have the far right, you have the
far left, not too many people in the middle like me..Take the blinders off,,,
left and right and life will be less stressful. Flat income tax, everyone pays
the same percentage……Too simple I guess, people have to make it harder
than what it really is..