Greedy Socialists
My column for the West Bend Daily News is online. It’s called “Greedy Socialists.” In it I take a look at one of those little ironies of ideologies.
Good column. I agree with it. The use of incrementalism, along with control of Public education has made the transition smoother. Few on the left would admit this. Few on the right will face up to the fact that many on the right are just a responsible as those on the left. A sad state of affairs, actually, but you hit on the reason. Human nature.
Posted by Billiam on January 06, 2009 at 1051 hrs
As usual, you’re confused on tax refunds.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 06, 2009 at 1110 hrs
Right now America is freer and less socialist than it will ever be.
But not more than it has been in relatively recent memory.
Good column.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 06, 2009 at 1201 hrs
but you hit on the reason. Human nature.
Precisely…
People ask me why I have no faith in government and that I never believe more government is the answer and its because I know the truth about human nature. And thats not to say that human nature is all bad. There are some fantastic aspects of human nature, but one must ask themselves what are we leveraging? Are we leveraging the best in human nature, or the worst? I think thats an easy question to answer when you look at government today.
I don’t believe in government because I know human nature. Human nature is such that:
-we tend to follow the path of least resistance.
-we spend our own money MUCH more frugally than we spend someone elses. (ever seen people traveling on a company expense account compared to people paying their own way)
-we work ALOT harder when we are working for ourselve than when we are working for someone else.
-No one knows how to satisfy our needs better than we do individually. Therefore, if I have a dollar to spend on what I need, there is NO way in the world I can give that dollar to anyone else, especially government, and have them spend it as well on the things I need.
-Self-sufficiency will come naturally, but laziness can only be enabled. It is, in fact impossible to be lazy long term without someone to enable you. Hunger and discomfort is perhaps the only motivator that works for some people, but IT DOES WORK.
It is time that our government stop leveraging the worst of human nature. Things like greed, envy, class warfare, laziness and dependence. Instead government should leverage and reward the best of human nature. Motivation, opportunity, self-sufficiency and accountablity.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 06, 2009 at 1212 hrs
I think your column is wrong on several points. First of all, the 45k family does pay taxes. Not only do they pay state, local, sales, etc., but they pay other payroll taxes to the federal government that aren’t the income tax. Let’s disabuse ourselves of the notion that a family making $45k a year is getting something for nothing when they cash their stimulus check.
I think you’re absolutely wrong that Americans are all about voting their self-interest. If they were, the middle class—the most numerous of us—would be very prosperous indeed by now. But this has not happened. Frankly, too many Americans have been convinced to vote on so-called moral issues to the detriment of their own communities and families.
Posted by scott on January 06, 2009 at 1232 hrs
I said “income taxes” for a reason. My statement was entirely accurate.
Posted by Owen on January 06, 2009 at 1233 hrs
Yes, you did. I didn’t mean to imply that you weren’t being accurate. I’m simply suggesting that by limiting your remark to income taxes—the most progressive tax there is—is deceptive.
Posted by scott on January 06, 2009 at 1236 hrs
Hmmm… I was specific because Obama was being specific about the income tax. How am I being deceptive? I assume a certain level of intelligence in my readership to understand that when I say “income taxes,” I mean it.
Posted by Owen on January 06, 2009 at 1241 hrs
I should say “misleading.” By limiting your remarks to income tax it seems to support your assertion that the 45k family is getting a $1,500 check comprised solely of someone else’s money. That isn’t true.
I’m not even dodging that some of these policies have a redistributive effect. I’m simply saying that you’re overstating the case and making it sound outrageous when it’s really not.
Posted by scott on January 06, 2009 at 1254 hrs
I’m simply saying that you’re overstating the case and making it sound outrageous when it’s really not.
Not outrageous? Perhaps not if your an Obama-shill liberal its not… sure…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 06, 2009 at 1323 hrs
By limiting your remarks to income tax it seems to support your assertion that the 45k family is getting a $1,500 check comprised solely of someone else’s money. That isn’t true.
Yes, it is true. The FICA money foes to current recipients of SS (who also get stimulus checks). So the money is pure, unadulterated redistribution. Getting something for nothing.
Posted by David on January 06, 2009 at 1413 hrs
Scott - I like how when it is convenient for your argument, FICA & Medicare are taxes - unless it isn’t convenient for your argument.
Not only do they pay state, local, sales, etc., but they pay other payroll taxes to the federal government that aren’t the income tax.
They won’t pay state taxes - and even what little they pay, it isn’t the feds responsibility to tax you on the state level. There are no local income taxes in Milwaukee (Yet!) and a family at that income level would be lucky to spend $150 annually in sales tax. About the only taxes that they would pay any significant portion of would be property tax and cigarette taxes. And once again those are state issues. Not federal issues.
So other than the wealth redistribution tax known as FICA and Medicare the family of four with an income of less than 45k/year pay near zero federal income taxes.
Darn - never mind - Here I am using logic and I forgot who I was debating with.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 06, 2009 at 1601 hrs
I like how when it is convenient for your argument, FICA & Medicare are taxes - unless it isn’t convenient for your argument.
No, that’s what Owen is doing. I’m the guy who always wants to include all forms of taxation in these discussions. Maybe it’s self-serving, as when you calculate tax burdens that way, the poor and middle class are getting screwed even worse than we think when we’re just discussing federal income taxes.
Also, I wasn’t aware that having a portion of our payroll taxes go to social security means that they have no place in a discussion of tax burdens.
Posted by scott on January 06, 2009 at 1617 hrs
In a perverse way, Scott is correct. This “stimulus” package isn’t going to be paid for by the other 60%, Owen. It’s going to be paid for by everyone through the good old fashioned massive currency devaluation that has always been the result of such economic policies.
It will disproportionately hit anyone stupid enough to save or invest their money as dollars.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 06, 2009 at 1718 hrs
Owen, excellent article. The major hurdle conservatives face is to convince the public that pork (or crack) isn’t necessarily good for you just because it is “free.” Free meaning somebody else is paying for it. Free sick day pay comes to mind.
Good discussion too, except, if you pile too much logic on scott, he will claim you are all haters when he realizes he has lost the issue (or exposed as a total phoney).
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 06, 2009 at 1809 hrs
Funny stuff, Owen.
“As it turns out, the liberals who decry greediness in corporate America are engaging in an act of greed every time they vote to expand our government.”
Unfortunately for your thesis, Owen, Obama did quite well among people more affluent than your hypothetical family of five.
Obama won 52% of the vote among those who make $75 K to $100 K and 52% of the vote among those who make $200 K or more (the last group, mind you, which was explicitly targeted in Obama’s tax plans). He did quite well in other affluent categories as well, picking up 48% of voters making $100 K to $150 K and 46% of voters making $150 K to $200 K. Obama picked up 48% of those who make from $50 k to $75 K.
So if you make $100 K or $200 K and voted for Obama, how does that make you “greedy”? Or does it mean you thought Obama’s ideas were superior and that the Republican mantra of “tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts” seemed increasingly brain dead?
(Separately, “socialism” is not a political system defined by bigness or even transfer payments but by the ownership of means of production by producers. “Socialists” would be members of a socialist party or those who practice socialism. Maybe you should lay off using these terms as they make you seem somewhat silly.)
Posted by Brew City Brawler on January 06, 2009 at 2248 hrs
Socialism is not a discrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and program; its branches advocate a degree of social interventionism and economic rationalization, sometimes opposing each other. wikipedia.org
Sounds like Owen got it right. Also, he said liberal, not richest voters. He also said income tax. Why don’t you take a couple paid sick days and learn to read.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 06, 2009 at 2321 hrs
Actually, Owen, you were inaccurate in your characterization of that family. You make it sound like they are getting money for free, when in fact, they pay taxes. Instead, their overall tax burden is reduced.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 06, 2009 at 2337 hrs
Oh, John Galt.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 06, 2009 at 2346 hrs
What a bizarre column. First, the government has grown more in the last 8 years than it has in a very long time. If you equate socialism with big government, then it’s absurd to suggest that our country is less socialist than it will ever be, and that’s completely ignoring the handouts given to “free market” players like banks and auto companies that we saw last year, and hopefully will not be repeated in the future.
More importantly though, your suggestion that conservatives who vote for lower taxes for themselves to save themselves money are acting against their interest, while liberals who vote for higher taxes for themselves to help less fortunate people are self-interested is absolutely insane. You need to be careful, that kind of crazy spinning can make a fella dizzy, and those sidewalks are slippery this time of year.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 07, 2009 at 1238 hrs
Well written Owen, although it does make me want to cry. Socialism is so easy to sell, “here have some free money”...that it is hard to see where this slippery slope will end. It is easy to see why someone making 45K and who has never, nor probably will never pay a dime in taxes would vote for someone that is promising to give them $1,500. Next it will be $3,000, then $20,000. Which leaves two outcomes….we print so much money that the devaluation of the dollar, eats up all of that “free money” so what looks like a transfer payment is really instead reflected in rampant inflation or we up the taxes on those who actually pay taxes, depressing the economy and turning the recession into a more permanent state, where we have double digit unemployment, and a disincentive to work hard built into the economy.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 08, 2009 at 1417 hrs
Total Entries: 19652
Total Comments: 129807
Most Recent Entry: 02/09/2012 08:10 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 02/10/2012 11:00 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 105
Total anonymous users: 1
Most Recent Visitor on: 02/10/2012 11:28 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).