Paul Krugman put up a few videos of interest on his blog. One is a debate with Newt Gingrich on taxes, another is a panel discussion on the effects of wealth inequality. (I only watched the second video, and only 45 minutes of it. Considering I have a 9-month who doesn't really let me sleep, I think that's pretty good.) Krugman's view on taxes -- which goes hand-in-hand with his view on inequality -- is that taxes on the super-rich should go up, way up. He doesn't give a hard and fast number, but the literature, he claims, shows that if society's goal is strictly to maximize revenue then taxes on extreme wealth should be something around 70%. Can you imagine how bonkers Republicans would go just at the thought of this? If I were a congressperson, I'd draft legislation along these lines just to watch the GOP and the right-wing media freak the fuck out. Even if it went nowhere, it'd be worth it.
Personally, I'm divided on "soaking" the super-rich with taxes -- ideologically I think one way, practically I think a different way. More and more I'm finding this dichotomy extends beyond taxes to other areas like welfare and unions. Philosophically I'm "conservative", pragmatically I'm "liberal". So, this pretty much makes me just liberal as I don't put much stock in ideology. The reason I'm not Republican (or religious) is because I do let facts get in the way. I'm not liberal at heart; I'm a liberal at brain.*
On taxes, in a better world everybody would just pay the same rate, end of. But in a better world there wouldn't be deductions or loopholes, we'd crack down on offshore evasion, there would be no corporate taxes, because corporations wouldn't be "people", at all, and big business would feel a social imperative to behave responsibly and pay their workers a decent share of revenue instead of hoarding it all at the top. Given that we don't live in this better world, drastically raising taxes on people with super high incomes makes some sense. If you don't like it, start working on those other things I just mentioned.
On welfare, I don't like the idea of giving somebody something for nothing,** especially if the person you're giving it to needs it because they have a bunch of kids they can't take care of. I'm not an "it takes a village" type of guy. To quote MC Rob Base, it takes two. However, if the two are a 23-year old high school dropout on her fifth kid with her fourth dude and a nonexistent dad, then yes, a village is preferable. But how about we take some measures to prevent these five-kids, absent-dad situations from happening instead of subsidizing them after the fact? So I get the anti-welfare argument. But when welfare is cut in practice it doesn't create a society of people who are forced to become self-sufficient, get a job (especially when there are scant jobs to be had), and contribute to society. It creates a lot suffering, in particular a lot of suffering by kids whose only sin was to come from irresponsible parents. There's evidence that welfare works.
Plus, one thing mentioned in the discussion on inequality linked to above is that the American Dream -- the rags-to-riches story -- isn't really American. Canada and many European countries actually have more upward mobility than we do, in part because a stronger safety net incentivizes greater risk***, in part because things like universal access to decent healthcare and decent public schools level the playing field for kids in their formative years. So, we can philosophize all we want about weaning the slackers off the narcotic of government aid, but when it comes down to it, I'd rather just do what works.
OK, enough of that...
So when I started this post I had the intention of just touching on politics and moving on to other topics, but like usual I went long and ran out of steam, so I'm crying "uncle" for the night. But I will leave with the most bizarre nursery rhyme I've ever come across. It's a single verse repeated over and over, and that verse is about a little girl meeting an old man all cloaked in leather. Uh... is pedophilia an appropriate topic for a kid's song?
Until next time...
*By the way, the notion that liberals are the bleeding-heart, head-in-the-clouds idealists, and conservatives are the grounded realists who have to make the tough, but necessary decisions is one of the biggest bits of horseshit ever. It's almost the exact opposite. If I were a Democratic strategist I'd already be thinking of ways to hammer the 2016 GOP presidential candidate on this, especially if it's somebody like Paul Ryan whose policies were literally shaped by fantasy. I'd compare his ideology to communism, like his ideology is to the right what communism is to the left -- so far away from the center that it's completely unrealistic. "Right-wing communist" as a catchphrase? I could see it going viral.
**By the way, instead of welfare, couldn't we have "work fare", where you have to do something to get government aid, like pick up trash on the street or pull weeds at public parks or wash away graffiti, something. Did Clinton try this? I seem to recall something along these lines, but I'm too lazy to look it up right now.
***A few years ago Malcolm Gladwell wrote a good piece debunking our romantic beliefs about great American risk-taking industrialists, in general.
Personally, I'm divided on "soaking" the super-rich with taxes -- ideologically I think one way, practically I think a different way. More and more I'm finding this dichotomy extends beyond taxes to other areas like welfare and unions. Philosophically I'm "conservative", pragmatically I'm "liberal". So, this pretty much makes me just liberal as I don't put much stock in ideology. The reason I'm not Republican (or religious) is because I do let facts get in the way. I'm not liberal at heart; I'm a liberal at brain.*
On taxes, in a better world everybody would just pay the same rate, end of. But in a better world there wouldn't be deductions or loopholes, we'd crack down on offshore evasion, there would be no corporate taxes, because corporations wouldn't be "people", at all, and big business would feel a social imperative to behave responsibly and pay their workers a decent share of revenue instead of hoarding it all at the top. Given that we don't live in this better world, drastically raising taxes on people with super high incomes makes some sense. If you don't like it, start working on those other things I just mentioned.
On welfare, I don't like the idea of giving somebody something for nothing,** especially if the person you're giving it to needs it because they have a bunch of kids they can't take care of. I'm not an "it takes a village" type of guy. To quote MC Rob Base, it takes two. However, if the two are a 23-year old high school dropout on her fifth kid with her fourth dude and a nonexistent dad, then yes, a village is preferable. But how about we take some measures to prevent these five-kids, absent-dad situations from happening instead of subsidizing them after the fact? So I get the anti-welfare argument. But when welfare is cut in practice it doesn't create a society of people who are forced to become self-sufficient, get a job (especially when there are scant jobs to be had), and contribute to society. It creates a lot suffering, in particular a lot of suffering by kids whose only sin was to come from irresponsible parents. There's evidence that welfare works.
[I applauded the effort, Mayor Bloomberg.]
Plus, one thing mentioned in the discussion on inequality linked to above is that the American Dream -- the rags-to-riches story -- isn't really American. Canada and many European countries actually have more upward mobility than we do, in part because a stronger safety net incentivizes greater risk***, in part because things like universal access to decent healthcare and decent public schools level the playing field for kids in their formative years. So, we can philosophize all we want about weaning the slackers off the narcotic of government aid, but when it comes down to it, I'd rather just do what works.
OK, enough of that...
So when I started this post I had the intention of just touching on politics and moving on to other topics, but like usual I went long and ran out of steam, so I'm crying "uncle" for the night. But I will leave with the most bizarre nursery rhyme I've ever come across. It's a single verse repeated over and over, and that verse is about a little girl meeting an old man all cloaked in leather. Uh... is pedophilia an appropriate topic for a kid's song?
[How do you do? And, how do you do? And, how do you do, again?]
Until next time...
*By the way, the notion that liberals are the bleeding-heart, head-in-the-clouds idealists, and conservatives are the grounded realists who have to make the tough, but necessary decisions is one of the biggest bits of horseshit ever. It's almost the exact opposite. If I were a Democratic strategist I'd already be thinking of ways to hammer the 2016 GOP presidential candidate on this, especially if it's somebody like Paul Ryan whose policies were literally shaped by fantasy. I'd compare his ideology to communism, like his ideology is to the right what communism is to the left -- so far away from the center that it's completely unrealistic. "Right-wing communist" as a catchphrase? I could see it going viral.
**By the way, instead of welfare, couldn't we have "work fare", where you have to do something to get government aid, like pick up trash on the street or pull weeds at public parks or wash away graffiti, something. Did Clinton try this? I seem to recall something along these lines, but I'm too lazy to look it up right now.
***A few years ago Malcolm Gladwell wrote a good piece debunking our romantic beliefs about great American risk-taking industrialists, in general.
No comments:
Post a Comment