Advertisement

LJWorld.com weblogs Loyal Opposition

A Redistribution Primer

Advertisement

One of the basic tenants of Mr. Obama’s campaign was a more equitable distribution of income. The process to be used to achieve this goal was not presented in detail at that time. After almost four years I would contend we can see the outlines of his approach.

The Democrats created in Mr. Obama’s first year in office a 1 trillion a year imbalance in our annual federal national budget which continues into the foreseeable future. Many Democrats call for continued spending at that level of GDP or perhaps a further expansion to 25% of GDP. It is my contention that the only way we can pay for that is to soak the upper half of the middle class because they are the group paying the taxes now. No rationale increase on the wealthy would cover an increase so large.

It is also my contention that for the most part there is no such thing as a “Bush Tax Cut” .The current tax rates on the people who pay most of our federal taxes (upper middle class) are in excess of what they were paying pre the Reagan tax cuts. While presumably ending those cuts would also increases taxes on the rest of us, in fact the expansion of deductions since Reagan means the near 50% paying little or no federal income tax now will see no increase. Letting the “Bush Tax Cuts” expire will tax the upper middle class at a rate unique in our history (except wars), exempt about half the tax payers from federal taxes and barely nick the rich.

I further argue that the ACA is an exemplar for all future broad based entitlements (Social Security and Medicare) where they will be heavily means tested. The ACA will be and most other federal programs are already. Note that part of the rational for the $ 600 billion in cuts to Medicare is a change in the means te4sting formula. This enhanced means testing on broad based national programs will devastate the upper half of the middle class, expand entitlements significantly to the lower half and essentially hold harmless the rich.

In short through tax and entitlement policy the Obama administration is relentlessly moving toward redistributing income from the upper half of the middle class to the lower half of the middle class while avoiding most impact on their rich donor set? In fact his administration may well smother any ambition to make more than about $50K as the government in one form or another will take most of it in excess to that level. Only the already really rich (>.1M) will still have incentive to achieve.

Comments

George Lippencott 1 year, 7 months ago

Thank you for your characterization. Name calling gets old on here. And to answer your note the other half of my federal return goes in part for wars. - so what??

The rest of your diatribe is about capitalism - in which you claim to have amply participated. Sorry you did not make it to the 1%.

0

Alceste 1 year, 7 months ago

http://www.hhh.umn.edu/news_events/Centennial/pdf/ArtofthePossibleTranscript.pdf

HUMPHREY: "We have forgotten that we are our brother’s keeper. We have forgotten about each other. We are the victims of neglect. We have neglected cities and farms and people and Ch*ldren and the elderly. And we have had as the measure of our success that those who already have too much shall have some more. That’s right – rather than those who have too little shall get enough! And the real test of.....if you please, of a man of spirit, of faith, is that he sees to it that those who have too little get enough".

0

George Lippencott 1 year, 7 months ago

Nobody explained how we are going to pay for that trillion per year?

Nobody acknowledged that the upper middle are paying more than before the Bush tax cuts

Go Obama.

Anybody in the upper middle class or hoping to get their who vote for Obama deserve what they get - a soft $50K cap on their income.

0

Alyosha 1 year, 7 months ago

Obama is more Republican than most of the anti-Obama commenters on LJWorld.com.

From a Republican party platform: "America does not prosper unless all Americans prosper." Compare to Obama's "My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s going be good for everybody."

President Eisenhower: "Labor is the United States. The men and women, who with their minds, their hearts and hands, create the wealth that is shared in this country—they are America."

It's hard for some commenters to admit, but Obama is more of a Republican than the current national party and its supporters (including the owner of this newspaper web site).

Since Obama's policies are to the right, politically speaking, of the Republicans under Eisenhower and even Nixon, in terms of economics, one must look for other reasons why certain Americans' powers of reason and understanding fail them when confronted with a President who is more to the right than Eisenhower or Nixon.

It's unfortunate that so many people, including the owner of this paper, engage in and enflame a groundless, irrational hysteria, instead of calmly and reasonably getting outside their own fantasies and seeing the world as it actually is.

What will they do when a majority of Americans again duly elect Obama as president of the United States?

One hopes they will rationally reflect on how hysterical their outbursts have been. But I doubt it.

0

tange 1 year, 7 months ago

Moderate says...

"... Note that part of the rational for the $ 600 billion in cuts to Medicare is a change in the means te4sting formula...."

"... It does explain why I believe 3each of my three points are plausible...."

/ oh-$o alphanumeri¢

0

George Lippencott 1 year, 7 months ago

  1. During the 2008 campaign Mr. Obama in an exchange with the infamous “Joe the Plumber” opined “My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s going be good for everybody. If you’ve got a plumbing business, you’re gonna be better off if you’ve got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you, and right now everybody’s so pinched that business is bad for everybody, and I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody." I know there has been a lot of argument about the highlighted portion. I interpret it as support for redistribution. There is also the 2001 radio program but the redistribution discussed there was narrowly focused on essentially compensation for slavery. My blog my interpretation.

  2. My blog is not a fact as it assumes actions not yet taken. It does explain why I believe 3each of my three points are plausible. I challenge you to offer another approach to paying for the 1 trillion annual shortfall. The ACA is proposed to be means tested.. The administration proposes to means test my TRICARE and my prescription benefits.

  3. You are absolutely right in your numbers however I wrote the upper middle class ($69K to about $120K) income. See http://www2.ljworld.com/weblogs/loyal-opposition/2012/aug/24/another-tax-deception-the-bush-tax-incre/ We all know the higher income people made out like bandits.

0

Armstrong 1 year, 7 months ago

It's always amazed me when the lefties dont agree with an idea they find some of the most obscure points to pick apart instead of looking at the big picture, but that's always been the problem with the left, kind of political/ lifestyle A.D.D.

Looking at the big picture of Barry's wealth redistribution scam that he did indeed pimp during his campaign he has failed (again ). We hear daily the number of people on welfare at record levels. 23 million out of work and a stagnant economy ( still ).

If Barry were to be successful at his redistribuition scam I would ask our clueless leader, Hey Barry - show me the money. Unfortunately at that point he would have to ponder Stimulus money1 and or 2 ? Solyndra ? ....

0

tange 1 year, 7 months ago

"One of the basic tenants of Mr. Obama’s campaign was a more equitable distribution of income...."

Dear Muderate... may I call you Mud? Your turbidity confounds... nay... astounds!

I never could write from an outline; I'd commit a sentence, and then compose sequentially, generatively, with little regard for revision, initial conditions preeminent.

So, let me venture to reseed your discourse with recourse...

"One of the basic tenants of Mr. Obama’s campaign is a more effectual utilization of resources...."

Your turn.

/ one good one deserves another, neh? unless your incentive for achievement is indeed preceded by something as hollow as a dollar sign

0

Alyosha 1 year, 7 months ago

I missed where the President said that "one of the basic tenants of [his] campaign was a more equitable distribution of income."

Kindly point to the specific quote wherein he says this, either in the campaign prior to the 2008 or as President, and / or while campaigning for the 2012 election.

Also, you say that you argue various points ("I further argue that the ACA is an exemplar for all future broad based entitlements"), but you don't; what you make are simply assertions. Assertions are certainly part of an argument, but the necessary elements making it an actual argument include evidence and warrants for your assertions.

Lastly, a bit of historicizing your understanding of the tax code in America would help. For instance:

Under President Eisenhower:

Marginal Tax Rate on Regular Income over $400,000: 92% - 91% Maximum Tax Rate on Long-Term Capital Gains: 25%

Under President Obama:

Marginal Tax Rate on Regular Income: over $372,950 - over 388,350: 35% Maximum Tax Rate on Long-Term Capital Gains: 15%

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/eisenhower-obama-wealthiest-americans-pay-taxes-193734550--abc-news.html

If you're going to make the claim that Obama represents some mortal danger for the United States based on his tax policies, you'll also then (morally, ethically) have to concede that President Eisenhower was even more of a danger — and yet here we are. The United States was not destroyed under Eisenhower, obviously.

This reads more like a set of hyperbolic assumptions about Obama and the vast majority of Americans who work for a living (they who the Republicans used to believe "are America" -- see http://www2.ljworld.com/weblogs/elevate-them-guns-a-little-lower/2012/sep/4/labor-is-the-united-states/) -- and statements based on imaginary perceptions — hardly the best way to create public policy in a nation of 300 million people of diverse views and perspectives.

That's why we must rely on evidence-based policy and ethical / moral argumentation to build consensus, not rely on fuzzy imaginings and distortions.

2

Commenting has been disabled for this item.