home

The Big Progressive Project: Addressing Income Inequality

Kevin Drum writes:

So when Ross [Douthat] says "the chances for a rolling series of progressive victories have diminished," I think that's mistaken. There was never any real appetite for a rolling series of big progressive victories in the first place. There was healthcare reform plus a long list of tweaks and smaller projects. And that's what we're likely to get. [. . .] But big ticket items? There probably aren't any [. . .]

I could not disagree more. The biggest progressive ticket item for me is addressing income inequality. I am always amazed that people forget this. Indeed, it is emblematic of the problem that people forget (except for trotting out Marjorie Margolies Mezhvinsky last week) the truly most progressive initiative since Medicare, - the 1993 Clinton tax initiative (which lowered taxes on the poor and raised them on the rich), and the most anti-progressive policy of the Bush years (cutting taxes for the wealthy) when they discuss progressive goals. This used to be the heart and soul of Democratic politics and policy. It seems no longer.

Speaking for me only

< The Theory Of Change | Tuesday Morning Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 10:30:42 AM EST
    unfortunately no longer. It seems it's now supply side economics with a "progressive" label.

    What an awful post (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by CST on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 10:34:27 AM EST
    (not yours, Drum's).  We're done, nothing to see here, we fixed the whole country, you're welcome.

    Tell that to the broke and unemployed.  Nevermind the fact that he clearly doesn't consider gay rights or immigration reform "big ticket" items.

    Actually, there is real reason (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by masslib on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 10:38:04 AM EST
    to be fearful the Democrats will do just that, and then the economy rebounds, people are just glad to be out of the worst of it, but any restoration of income equality lags behind.  We really needed big policy changes toward restoring income equality.

    Parent
    No Obama and the Dems are not done (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by MO Blue on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 12:09:33 PM EST
    Still on the menu for next year are the "fixes" to the entitlement programs, Social Security and Medicare. Those "fixes" will be much easier with a more Republican and conservative Congress.

    Parent
    Guess I'd best renew my "inactive" (none / 0) (#37)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 12:46:37 PM EST
    status w/the state bar.  

    Parent
    Today's NYT, column 1, p. 1, (none / 0) (#65)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 01:51:40 PM EST
    Oh, yes (none / 0) (#98)
    by Zorba on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 05:55:58 PM EST
    Social Security is next.  What they'll probably do is find a way to cut benefits for everyone, and possibly raise the eligible age even further.  Although, what they should do is remove the cap on S.S. withholding, and means test the pay-out for those in the upper-incomes.  They probably won't do this because it would be seen as too "punitive" for the well-off.  After all, the rich are the ones who count in this country, right? (/snark)

    Parent
    I don't think there is any means testing (none / 0) (#102)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 06:18:11 PM EST
    on how much a person receives from Social Security.  But, the maximum amount one can receive is not reflective of income earned.  There is a cap.

    Parent
    There is not currently (none / 0) (#107)
    by Zorba on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 07:45:29 PM EST
    means testing for what one receives from S.S. (although there is a maximum amount you can receive).  As of this year and last year, your S.S. withholding wage base stops at a yearly income of $106,800.  In other words, any amount you make over that is not subject to the Social Security tax.  I am proposing eliminating that cap- everything you make should be subject to the S.S. tax.  And, if your retirement income is huge, your Social Security payments should be reduced by a reasonable amount.

    Parent
    Social Security is a return (none / 0) (#109)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 08:02:04 PM EST
    of money that you have given the state.

    And you want it means tested?

    You know, I started paying in when I was 14 and did so for the next 51 years.

    And you want it means tested?

    And you probably can't figure out why so many seniors consider the Left dangerous.

    Parent

    The commenter has not picked up (none / 0) (#116)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 09:40:22 PM EST
    on the fact there is a cap on amount of Social Security benefits receivable.

    Parent
    There is a cap on monthly benefits (none / 0) (#120)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 10:44:49 PM EST
    based on earnings...

    but I know of no "lifetime maximum amount to be paid out."

    Parent

    Me neither--fortunately. (none / 0) (#121)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 10:47:22 PM EST
    It's a "return of money" ... (none / 0) (#127)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 07:45:38 AM EST
    ... in the general sense that you're receiving $ back from the government after (usually) contributing $, but it's more like an annuity with disability insurance than a regular/retirement investment account/401(k).  It's not like you have an account that belongs to you.  SS includes disability payments for people, including some who have never contributed to SS.  It also includes survivor benefits for spouses who have never paid into SS.  Also, unlike a 401(k)/IRA, you can't bequeath the amount you contributed to your family if you die before you start drawing payments, or if you die before drawing back an amount equivalent to the amount you contributed plus interest.

    On the plus side, if you live a long life, you'll draw back much more than you contributed, without having to rely on other social programs.  Either way, "means testing" proposals I've seen don't eliminate your SS benefits.  It simply limits them to a maximum amount, just as the maximum amount you're required to contribute is limited right now.

    Parent

    Yeah (none / 0) (#133)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 12:33:05 PM EST
    Being 72 I got all that down pat.

    And anytime the government talks about "means testing" what they mean is the middle class taking it in the shorts.

    Parent

    Do you (none / 0) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 10:38:34 AM EST
    know what's even worse? It's not only Drum that thinks that way. The statements he's making could have come from Obama on down in the party. The stuf coming out of the WH is basically well, we can't do anything about unemployment really and we
    re all just going to have to learn to live with 10% unemployment.

    Parent
    his re-election (none / 0) (#9)
    by CST on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 11:01:23 AM EST
    depends upon him being wrong

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 11:04:29 AM EST
    maybe Obama doesn't want a second term. Maybe he's bored with being Prez. Maybe he's cluesless because he's never had to really run for reelection before. Who knows?

    Parent
    I have a friend ... (none / 0) (#47)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 01:06:11 PM EST
    who's convinced that Obama isn't going to run for a second term.  This guy's an old political hand, so I can't dismiss his notion out of hand.

    Personally, I don't see that happening.  

    But given the way he's governed, and his lack of broad goals, one can see an argument forming in the ether:  That he came in to do a couple of things, and trot off to spend a lucrative life on the lecture circuit.

     

    Parent

    I've heard that, too (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by Zorba on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 01:26:12 PM EST
    I too, don't see it happening, but who knows?  I never would have thought that LBJ would drop out of running for his second term, at least until the New Hampshire Primary in 1968.  (And, don't forget, besides the lucrative lecture circuit, Obama gets to go down in the history books as the first black president, whether it's one term or two.)

    Parent
    Yup, just one of those ... (none / 0) (#67)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 02:10:12 PM EST
    ideas to "bookmark", so we aren't too surprised if it happens.

    Parent
    Can't think (none / 0) (#83)
    by brodie on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 03:21:24 PM EST
    of  a single prez who didn't want another term after the first, however much they might have bellyached in private about the job.  Obama is almost certainly no different.  He's one ambitious pol, and just one term, he's beginning to realize, just isn't enough time to get done what he wants to get done.

    LBJ got out only when the formidable Bobby got in, two weeks earlier; not much to do with Gene McCarthy a backbencher LBJ did not respect.  Johnson probably didn't want to risk losing another nomination to another Kennedy.  Well, that's one interpretation.  

    The other is, Johnson's plan was to get out only temporarily, get some positive props and a bump in the polls for that selfless gesture, then get back in when the opportunity presented, around the time of the August Dem convention.  And the record shows that a few weeks before the convention, Johnson was indeed asking around to get a better read about getting back in.  Almost all told him it would not be a good idea.

    Parent

    Yes, that was (none / 0) (#100)
    by Zorba on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 06:14:30 PM EST
    the idea floating around back then.  I lived through it.  I was surprised (given LBJ's tremendous ego) that he dropped out at all (as you said, they always want another term).  But, given the huge protests against the Viet Nam War (of which my husband and I were active participants) and the impact of Bobby Kennedy entering the race, that old LBJ ego could not face a possible loss to another Democrat, especially Bobby.  And then there was Martin Luther King's assassination in April and the subsequent race riots, and Bobby Kennedy's assassination in June.  And there were the ever-escalating anti-war protests.  Those pretty much blew holes in any cloud-cuckoo land dreams of LBJ to re-enter the race.  That's why his advisors told him to forget it, right before the the convention.  It was (and I'm being rather understated) an "interesting" time.  Of course, the end result was the Richard Nixon presidency, so we should all be very careful what we wish for. (Says the cynic in me.)

    Parent
    Yes, that was (none / 0) (#101)
    by Zorba on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 06:15:16 PM EST
    the idea floating around back then.  I lived through it.  I was surprised (given LBJ's tremendous ego) that he dropped out at all (as you said, they always want another term).  But, given the huge protests against the Viet Nam War (of which my husband and I were active participants) and the impact of Bobby Kennedy entering the race, that old LBJ ego could not face a possible loss to another Democrat, especially Bobby.  And then there was Martin Luther King's assassination in April and the subsequent race riots, and Bobby Kennedy's assassination in June.  And there were the ever-escalating anti-war protests.  Those pretty much blew holes in any cloud-cuckoo land dreams of LBJ to re-enter the race.  That's why his advisors told him to forget it, right before the the convention.  It was (and I'm being rather understated) an "interesting" time.  Of course, the end result was the Richard Nixon presidency, so we should all be very careful what we wish for. (Says the cynic in me.)

    Parent
    Sorry for the double post (none / 0) (#103)
    by Zorba on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 06:26:47 PM EST
    Don't know how that happened- please delete the second one.

    Parent
    FWIW (none / 0) (#71)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 02:53:22 PM EST
    I've said that here as far back as the general election campaign.  Not suggesting it's likely necessarily, but I do think it's a real possibility.

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#51)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 01:14:19 PM EST
    He will get re-elected no matter what. What's very clear now is that he will govern like a republican, and the left will cheerlead him as a historic progressive.

    Between that and the fact that the alternative is worse than unacceptable, he will definitely get re-elected. We are stuck.

    Parent

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by MO Blue on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 01:46:53 PM EST
    He will be able to accomplish the goals that the Republicans have failed to accomplish.

    Parent
    Is the like it took a (none / 0) (#74)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 02:59:38 PM EST
    Dem to slash Welfare. I have to admit it would be pretty sad if two consecutive Democratic Presidents dismanteled major social programs and while I don't think it will happen I get the political argument.

    Parent
    Except, ... (none / 0) (#128)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 08:21:49 AM EST
    ... PRWORA was not a "Republican" piece of legislation, in that it was supported by many Democrats.  In fact, equal numbers of Democratic Congressmen and Senators voted in favor of PRWORA as opposed it.  Moreover, welfare reform was a part of Clinton's campaign platform, and people knew that when they were deciding to support or oppose his candidacy.  This would be in contrast to say, Obama ... who promised to sign HCR legislation only if it included a public option.  Kind'uv a big difference.

    But keep up the "Clinton did it too!" meme.

    Somebody will buy it.

    Parent

    Dr Molly (none / 0) (#110)
    by Politalkix on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 08:22:28 PM EST
    You have been "stuck" since 1968!

    Parent
    1968, huh? (none / 0) (#112)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 09:14:28 PM EST
    Okaaaaaaay. Whatever you say.

    Parent
    1968, huh? (none / 0) (#113)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 09:15:02 PM EST
    Okaaaaaaay. Whatever you say, dude.

    Parent
    1968, huh? (none / 0) (#114)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 09:15:09 PM EST
    Okaaaaaaay. Whatever you say, dude.

    Parent
    But the (none / 0) (#111)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 08:45:12 PM EST
    catch is the "alternative is worse" What if the GOP ran Scott Brown? Many people might not see him as worse.

    Parent
    The health care bill (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 10:51:14 AM EST
    has built-in income inequality.  From the NOW web site:

    Fact: The bill also permits gender-rating, the practice of charging women higher premiums simply because they are women. Some are under the mistaken impression that gender-rating has been prohibited, but that is only true in the individual and small-group markets. Larger group plans (more than 100 employees) sold through the exchanges will be permitted to discriminate against women -- having an especially harmful impact in workplaces where women predominate.

    Larger employers can say, "gee, we'd really like to pay you as much as we pay the guy, but your health insurance costs more".  Or they probably won't say this, they'll just build it into their salary structure.

    Love the smell of "progressive" (LOL) legislation in the morning!

    Imagine if men's reproductive health was targeted (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Ellie on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 12:13:00 PM EST
    ... the same way. Would we be seeing this type of dismissive drivel from the fauxgressive fanboiz? (emphasis mine)

    Much Ado About Nothing: Explaining The Dustup Over The Health Care Abortion Compromise by Brian Beutler | March 23, 2010, 10:22AM,

    President Obama's decision to sign an executive order affirming that the health care bill's abortion language doesn't provide federal funds for abortion doesn't really change anything about the bill's provisions. Yet somehow it has infuriated both anti-abortion conservatives and pro-choice progressives.  [...]

    "What the bill does and what the executive order does is underscore that the status quo is preserved," said White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs at his daily press conference yesterday, acknowledging that the order it self changes nothing. And while legislators maintain that the executive order offered an acceptable middle ground between pro-choice and pro-life Democrats, privately, aides in both leadership and to rank and file members acknowledge that order was a symbolic gesture that allowed Stupak to save face...but nothing more.

    The final health care bill abides by the Hyde amendment by taking the notion of segregating private and public funds to the extreme. Under the terms of the bill, the vast majority of insurance consumers in the individual market will have to either forego buying insurance policies that cover abortions, or write two separate checks: One for most covered services, another for potential abortions. The government provides a third stream of funds, and it's up to the insurance companies to keep all these funds separate, so that abortions are paid for out of funds provided by private citizens.

    This j@ckwad sees no problem in imposing (upon millions of insured) additional oversight, administrative crap, loss of privacy etc. for a legal medical procedure ... just to save Stupak's rotten face.

    So no, this isn't just "symbolic" or a "dustup".

    Parent

    No (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 12:24:39 PM EST
    It would not.  And this is one of the many reasons why I have no use for Democrats nor "progressives".

    In addition, the discriminatory nature of the increased insurance premium cost to women imply that we women live in a vacuum.  Men apparently have no responsibility for our pregnancies.  We do it by ourselves apparently.  In addition, they have no mothers, did not come from the uterus themselves, thus never had reason that women's reproductive issues affected them in any way, shape or form.  They should NOT be required to pay for our uteri!

    LOL.

    Parent

    Amen sister (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 12:41:01 PM EST
    The burden of the uterus....it's enough to turn some of us into strippers trying to get our god damned money back from the jerks :)

    Parent
    Or some of our daughters. Mine was (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 12:47:29 PM EST
    just hired to be a census enumerator.

    Parent
    I love it (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 12:52:06 PM EST
    I didn't get much of a jobs bill.  I'm pissed.  When I got the census in the mail I ran down to the house from the mailbox to fill it out and then stopped myself.  If I don't fill this thing out immediately they might have to hire someone to check on me.  I don't care what anyone says, I'm getting a job added to my economy via the fed government (who needs to be doing exactly this anyhow right now).  I will be requiring some prodding on this.  They know where I am, they have all my numbers, they will have to give me a ring or something.  I may hold out for a really good job add on.....someone who actually has to come and knock on my door!

    Parent
    I haven't filled out the form but will now (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 01:17:58 PM EST
    that my own census enumerator has been hired.

    Parent
    I echo (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Zorba on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 12:54:51 PM EST
    Militarytracy's "Amen."  Somehow, I don't recall a celestial entity with wings and a white robe appearing to announce my pregnancies (and I probably would have loaded my shotgun and blasted away at the totally unexpected and probably alarming intrusion, before he/she/it could get a word out).  How would men feel if any federal monies were banned from being used for any erectile dysfunction treatment?  After all, one could argue that, if you can't get an erection, then you can't cause a pregnancy, and that would reduce the potential abortion rate.

    Parent
    Every last one of them owes there (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 01:00:38 PM EST
    first breath and their last breath to a woman and her uterus, but they have the worst selective memory in the history of selective memory!

    Parent
    They don't care (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Zorba on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 01:18:04 PM EST
    It's the old patriarchal mindset.  Our bodies and our uteri belong to the men, apparently.  Their potential offspring trump the mother's physical health, mental health, and well-being.  Plus, they have a skewed view of human sexuality (you can blame many, if not most, of the world's religions for this).  If you're married and get pregnant, it's supposed to be a "blessing from God" (and belongs to your husband anyway, in their warped minds).  If you're not married and get pregnant, then the pregnancy is a punishment for having had sex outside of marriage.  The fact that they tout themselves as so "pro-life" is belied by the fact that many of them don't seem to care much about helping the baby once it's born.  

    Parent
    You just can't stop hitting that nail :) (none / 0) (#58)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 01:26:18 PM EST
    I'm so sick of them too.  If I read one more condescending write up about bartering away my rights to human decency from yet another product of some struggling woman's uterus I'll start choking them all.  Or maybe I will hand out T-shirts that read "Shouldn't have survived Roe v. Wade" to them all......

    Parent
    I apologize in advance for this, (none / 0) (#95)
    by Zorba on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 05:40:24 PM EST
    But since most of these guys were born before Roe v. Wade, how about handing them T-Shirts with a picture of a bent coat hanger, with the words "Too bad my mother didn't use this"?  (Ouch- I'm sorry, my bad.)

    Parent
    We are just pissed (none / 0) (#115)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 09:24:19 PM EST
    All these ungrateful uterine productions!  They don't have the common sense to be ashamed of themselves though.

    Parent
    Oops.... (none / 0) (#46)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 01:04:08 PM EST
    Owes their first breath and last breath.  I don't want to get stupid about Pronouns at a juncture like this, you can't give these jerks any sort of loophole AT ALL when it comes to opportunities to spit on the uterus!  They will use it instantly.

    Parent
    Short of cancer or other life-threatening (none / 0) (#68)
    by Farmboy on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 02:11:57 PM EST
    situation, I'd like to know of an example where insurance has ever covered men's reproductive health.

    Parent
    Are vasectomies excluded from insurance (none / 0) (#82)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 03:19:07 PM EST
    coverage?

    Parent
    A quick google says many plans will pay (none / 0) (#87)
    by Farmboy on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 04:07:40 PM EST
    but is that procedure really reproductive health? To me, not having had one, it seems both voluntary and a form of birth control. Of course, I'm not an MD - hence my question.

    My original question was based on the fact that many aspects of female reproduction issues are covered, yet male fertility and other reproduction issues are not.

    Parent

    Another procedure exclusive to males: (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 04:13:14 PM EST
    Will Insurance Cover the Cost of the Penis Prosthesis Implant?
    Insurance coverage for these operations is often good, as long as a medical cause of ED is established. Medicare covers the surgery, but Medicaid does not.
    [Source:  WebMD.]


    Parent
    But doesn't ED just keep couples from (none / 0) (#92)
    by Farmboy on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 04:45:49 PM EST
    sitting outside in bathtubs? (sorry, couldn't resist)

    On a serious note, I hadn't considered ED, but now that you mention it I remember reading the complaints that Medicare was covering it. So far then we've found that birth control and erections are covered. I still haven't found anything that mentions male fertility issues being covered.

    Parent

    I found lots of articles from when Viagra (none / 0) (#93)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 04:52:42 PM EST
    first became available and was ASAP covered by insurance while birth control pills were not.  This is too aggravating.  Must stop.

    Parent
    If you can't (none / 0) (#104)
    by Zorba on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 06:35:07 PM EST
    get a hard-on, then your fertility is definitely affected.  Infertility tests and coverage is extremely variable (male or female), depending upon where you live and your insurance coverage.

    Parent
    The variability is what we've been finding, but (none / 0) (#126)
    by Farmboy on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 07:15:35 AM EST
    the raised question is about the gender-neutral language of the new law. Will that force some sort of uniform coverage for men's reproductive health, or it will it continue to be variable?

    Parent
    Sex Change (none / 0) (#123)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 11:13:49 PM EST
    One of the custodians at my college was able to get a sex change operation through work insurance. It was a state school.  

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#94)
    by coast on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 05:28:37 PM EST
    Went in for the consult and had the appointment made.  Day before the procedure, the wife says she doesn't want me to have the operation.  Relief and anger followed.  Relief that I didn't have to have the procedure, and anger that she waited to the day before.

    Parent
    Hint: You know how you also pee through that thing (none / 0) (#124)
    by Ellie on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 01:40:59 AM EST
    ... well, men's urology is also connected to their reproductive systems. It's a whole mess o' plumbing down there isn't it?

    Parent
    This is more of a "didn't fix" (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 03:01:29 PM EST
    than a created a problem- the ban on gender rating that this bill introduces is a new thing for most of America, the fact that it doesn't go beyond that is lamentable, but not a problem created by it.

    Parent
    Face-saving Stupak foto-op trumps women's health (none / 0) (#125)
    by Ellie on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 01:53:28 AM EST
    ... which the Dems ALWAYS held in low importance. Okey-dokey Sweetie. I was remiss in not jumping to my feet to join the thunderous applause for Obama, then.

    Parent
    I Like Ike's (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by par4 on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 10:58:49 AM EST
    top marginal tax rate. He moved it from 74% (FDR/Truman) up to 91% IIRC.

    Nah, the top marginal (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by brodie on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 12:38:59 PM EST
    rate was 92% when Truman left and Ike took over.  Stayed around 91% through Ike and JFK until it went to 70% under LBJ.  

    Then went way down under Reagan to 50% then to 28%.

    Parent

    Breathtaking, isn't it? (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 02:59:14 PM EST
    I don't recall hearing a lot of whining about it back in the '60s and '70s, either, except from the Birchers.

    Seem to remember the economy was roaring along pretty well in those days, too (aside, of course, from the occasional ordinary business-cycle recession).

    Reagan sure was "transformational" all righty.


    Parent

    How many (none / 0) (#85)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 03:33:12 PM EST
    People were in the upper most bracket then vs. now?  Does anyone know?

    Parent
    Good question (none / 0) (#122)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 11:06:59 PM EST
    Don't know the answer.  If you find out, let me know.

    I'm pretty sure from everything I've read about the widening income gap in this country over the last 50 years that there are more in that bracket nowm and more in the lower brackets.  It's the middle that's been getting gradually chipped away.

    But I don't know that for sure.

    Parent

    And it would be (none / 0) (#13)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 11:08:40 AM EST
    Political suicide for anyone to even mention that.  Walter Mondale was honest and said he was going to need to raise taxes to pay for our deficits and to raise us out of our recession.  

    He lost in one of the biggest landslides in history. While, this wasn't the only thing that cost him the election, it was a major one.

    Parent

    Well, if Obama et al don't stop (none / 0) (#17)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 11:48:43 AM EST
    reinforcing the deficit fears that the Republicans are raising, they won't have any choice - especially with a diminished employed tax base having the effect of reducing the government's revenue numbers.

    It would be fairly typical of this crowd to paint themselves into that corner, though.

    Parent

    Hasn't that already happened? Suddenly (none / 0) (#25)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 12:25:42 PM EST
    HCR had to be deficit neutral.

    Parent
    Yes, that's why I said it would be (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 12:40:54 PM EST
    fairly typical.

    I am not sure that it isn't deliberate either.  It is a way to keep the liberals at bay who would argue that a long-term investment in something like healthcare or whatever would pay off down the road.

    Keeping the focus on the short-term view of the deficit for the purposes of limiting the debate to the smaller scope of things that they are willing to do is advantageous to them.

    But it is a fine line that they walk and I think it is a fairly precarious position to take.  It doesn't leave them much wiggle room on anything.

    Just look at what it has done to the jobs initiative.  They may not think that they need to get America back to work, but they really do.  Unemployed people and their friends and family start to get pretty pissy with politicians when they feel ignored - and the unemployed people in particular have a lot of time on their hands to aggitate for change.

    Parent

    Deficit fears (none / 0) (#77)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 03:03:52 PM EST
    are party of the post-1984 Democratic Playbook- "balancing the budget" and "cutting the deficit" were big Clinton Administration tropes.

    Parent
    Democratic "trope"? (none / 0) (#131)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 10:20:48 AM EST
    Funny, ... I always thought that, absent a national crisis, a balanced budget was just good, common-sense budgeting and fiscal management.

    Go figure.

    Parent

    Deficit fears (none / 0) (#78)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 03:03:52 PM EST
    are party of the post-1984 Democratic Playbook- "balancing the budget" and "cutting the deficit" were big Clinton Administration tropes.

    Parent
    Uh, no (none / 0) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 12:45:12 PM EST
    and to raise us out of our recession.

    By 1984 the economy was already improving and the Carter recession was in the rear view mirror.

    Parent

    There's a fascinating world map (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Zorba on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 11:57:27 AM EST
    in the Wiki article on Income Inequality (click on the map at the top of the article to enlarge it) that shows the Gini Coefficient, which is
    a number between 0 and 1, where 0 corresponds with perfect equality (where everyone has the same income) and 1 corresponds with perfect inequality (where one person has all the income, and everyone else has zero income).



    That is really interesting (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by ruffian on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 12:15:49 PM EST
    Fascinating how much more equal Canada and most of Europe and the UK are compared to the US. We are verging into banana republic territory. Lovely.

    Parent
    Yes, I thought that was (none / 0) (#28)
    by Zorba on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 12:32:42 PM EST
    very telling.

    Parent
    Do I really want to live in Europe where (none / 0) (#96)
    by nyrias on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 05:53:04 PM EST
    the economy is stagnant? .. nope.

    I would much rather to be at a place with less income equality and more opportunities.

    At the extreme of total equality, you get communism and that is very bad for economic prosperity.

    Some income equality is a GOOD THING because it creates motivation.


    Parent

    I read a comment like yours and think (none / 0) (#117)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 09:41:17 PM EST
    to self, "Jesus save us".  Look, I have that sort of spirit as well...that get up and do something, make something, run something.  That is a personality trait though, it will not go away if the human suffering around us goes away.  If there is an economic base YOU...crazy overachiever workaholic, actually have a chance to do something with yourself too.  When the community is 80% broke and poor, you really think you'll get blood from turnips?  At that point the only thing that remains for the silverspoonless is to suck up to the wealthy and hope they throw you a scrap....without a healthy wage base middle you have no one to sell all your hard work and terrific ideas to........so DUH!  Trust me, you don't need everyone else to be treated like trash trying to distinguish yourself.  The sad part about people like us, we will be hell bent to overachieve until the day we die and we will still die just like everyone else.  And the European economy is functional, that is the sad part about being functional when you are an adrenaline junkie....functional is usually boring.

    Parent
    Village heads up village rearends (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 12:36:37 PM EST
    The people are suffering, the suffering is due to get worse too.  Could Kevin Drum's bulb get any dimmer? He might try wondering what could make poll numbers better or something constructive like that.  No politicians in power look any better than suckish right now.  I just talked to my husband about the healthcare bill.  He wanted a rundown, he has no access and no time to understand.  He wanted to know if the denial scams we deal with every day will be fixed.....NOPE, they will not.  He can serve his country until hell freezes over and Tricare Humana will always tell him NO to everything his son needs right out of the gate and stand there and wait to see how hard these people mean to fight and how much trouble they really mean to cause them.  If things get much worse people will be begging for the leadership of a Nader or a Kucinich.  So snap out of it Kev and stop cheering for making yourself completely irrelevant!  Simply trying to insure that you don't suck quite as bad as the Republicans will fail you man if you know anything about supply and demand and the laws of the universe.

    Third Rail (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by DancingOpossum on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 12:56:46 PM EST
    The Third Rail of postmodern American politics.

    Funny, the third rail used to be touching Social Security. Instant death to any party! Now, with our wonderful new progressive administration and Democratic-controlled Congress, ehhhhh...not so much.

    Entitlement cuts will be next. After that, war with Iran. There it is, your jobs bill/economy booster in one easy two-step package.

    Revisionist (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by joanneleon on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 01:17:39 PM EST
    I am seeing more and more revisionist rhetoric coming from writers and commenters on progressive blogs.

    There was never any real appetite for a rolling series of big progressive victories in the first place.

    How can anyone say that with a straight face?  Has he completely forgotten the Obama campaign?  Does he not realize why so many people were swept up in that (what appeared to be) movement?  

    Tweaks?  Seriously?  Tweaking things after a major economic meltdown?  Tweaking things for a country at war with at least two countries? Tweaking things for a country in crisis?  

    I keep hearing these kinds of talking points on different subjects.  It feels a lot like propaganda to me.  Bad propaganda.  Are we supposed to think that things are moving along smoothly and we just need to tweak a few things?  After this president campaigned on sweeping change?

    It gets more surreal every day.

    Revisionist history (none / 0) (#59)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 01:26:27 PM EST
    How can anyone say that with a straight face?  Has he completely forgotten the Obama campaign?  Does he not realize why so many people were swept up in that (what appeared to be) movement?

    No, I think many folks are now waking up to what actually WAS the Obama campaign.  He never campaigned on liberal ideas.  If you recall, his campaign was based on the fact that he apparently showed superior judgment because he supposedly opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning and if he won, he would pull the troops out of there.  He would also close Guantanamo and try to restore some basic things back to the Constitution.  His campaign was about hope and change - he was a Washington outsider who was going to change the way business was done in DC, who would bring transparency back into government.

    But nowhere, absolutely nowhere, did he run a concrete progressive ideas.

    Parent

    That's true (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by DancingOpossum on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 01:41:18 PM EST
    It's true that Obama never ran on a big progressive platform. But I think the point joanelon is making is that many, many people
    believed
    he was. And many of those people were desperate for major change after the misery of eight years of Bush and all its associated horrors. That isn't revisionist history. People really did think that electing Obama meant ushering in a whole new radical transformation. They were wrong, and some of them are realizing that now, in hindsight (although some remain happily deluded).

    But it's also true that the Obama campaign did nothing to disabuse them of that notion. Hell, his campaign used the word "change" in every slogan, every speech.

    But yeah, people really did want big-time change. Their mistake was thinking that Obama could deliver it.

    Parent

    Part of the problem (none / 0) (#108)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 07:56:41 PM EST
    Came from Obama himself.  As you pointed out, he and his campaign obviously did nothing to disabuse the notion people had that he was a leftie.  But he affirmatively stated on more than one occasion that he was a "blank slate" where people could write their hopes and dreams.  It's a great line, but I think people really did see him as the most progressive candidate when that clearly wasn't true (despite the rantings of the right wing).

    Parent
    I agree with him that we won't see any (none / 0) (#2)
    by masslib on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 10:32:10 AM EST
    big progressive victories.  Indeed, we HAVE NOT seen any.  But are you freaking kidding me with this?  "There was never any real appetite for a rolling series of big progressive victories in the first place."  Really?

    BTD, I am with you completely.  "The biggest progressive ticket item for me is addressing income inequality."  How can anyone who calls themselves a Democrat forget this?  How can we win so many elections and NOT understand the imperative of addressing income inequality?  

    That seems true pretty often (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 10:32:56 AM EST
    I think the reconciliation package does have some progressive taxation elements, though.

    The lowing of the sacred cows (none / 0) (#10)
    by ruffian on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 11:01:23 AM EST
    would be deafening. Progressive taxation is part of it. Another is the way the tax money gets spent. Should anyone receiving tax dollars for their services be able to become a multi-millionaire? There are many in the defense industry. And even the lowest paid defense worker gets paid more than other industries that are not tax-supported.

    People think it's fine that taxes give some people a good living, but not others - probably because it is not a direct link. The aerospace companies are the buffer, unlike teachers and others that get their checks right from the government.

    But trust me you won't make any friends, or get many votes, reminding defense workers they are supported by taxes.

    That is just one industry. I'm sure there are more. Seems like the ways that government istelf causes the income disparities are a good place for progressive elected officials to start.

    It does seem (none / 0) (#11)
    by CST on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 11:02:29 AM EST
    like "wealth redistribution" has become a scary phrase that people are afraid to promote.  But that's essentially what we need.

    Maybe (none / 0) (#15)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 11:13:16 AM EST
    Because many don't trust the government to do that?  In theory, I'm all for this.  In reality, how much more of your income are you willing for the government to take to give to someone else?  10%?  20%?

    The question is easy in the abstract - a little harder when you talk about your own income.

    Parent

    well frankly (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by CST on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 11:38:55 AM EST
    I can't talk about my income because I don't make enough money.  That would be raising taxes on the middle class which is something I don't support.

    That being said, I would be raising the taxes of my parents, which you could sort of consider my inheretance (although I don't really think of it that way since I doubt there will be anything significant left, and I hope they live for a long time to use it themselves).  However, both I, and they, would be just fine with that.  Because we believe that a rising tide lifts all boats.

    My parents were making more money when their tax rate was higher, because the entire economy was doing better.  So really, it's kind of a win/win.

    People may not trust the government, but they REALLY don't trust the wealthy.

    Parent

    Aren't (none / 0) (#39)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 12:51:40 PM EST
    "the government" and "the wealthy" generally the same thing? At least the part of "the government" that makes the decisions?

    Parent
    But will raising the tax rates (none / 0) (#41)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 12:54:03 PM EST
    improve the economy? And I assume that you mean that the time frame was pre 2002 and that they weren't involved in the Internet NASDAQ bubble burst that started in March 2000, loosing 50% of its value by March 2001.

    And if you assume that raising taxes somehow magically improve the economy will the gross incomes increase enough to cover the increase? That is, if income goes up 8%, a nice raise, and if taxes go up 15%, what's the net?

    Parent

    I don't subscribe to the belief (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by CST on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 01:08:41 PM EST
    that tax dollars disappear into the abyss.

    So that 15% is going to things like healthcare, education, transportation, and yes, defense.

    But a lot of that stuff (education, healthcare, transportation) benefits the economy in the long run for all users.

    And again, we're not talking about raising taxes on everyone.  But the benefits to raising taxes do go to everyone, and that shrinks the income gap.  I'm pretty ok with the top tax bracket making less money if that means people at the bottom are better off.

    Parent

    I didn't say they disappeared (none / 0) (#56)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 01:18:07 PM EST
    and yes they are used for a variety of things. But will they actually benefit the economy in the "long run?" Well, lay aside the fact that we all be dead in the long run, I have never seen any proof, and I am 72 years old, that this is true. I well remember the wonderful Truman, Ike and JFK years with their 90% rate, etc. And things were not "wonderful." They were difficult in the extreme.

    Parent
    It also substantially (none / 0) (#76)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 03:01:48 PM EST
    reduces the incentive to pay those obscene salaries to CEOs, banksters, and other Wall Street types.

    Parent
    Obama will only continue to disappoint (none / 0) (#14)
    by Yes2Truth on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 11:08:48 AM EST

    Absent a miracle, there is zero reason to expect that Obama will even propose, much less aggressively
    promote any kind of meaningful, progressive policies.

    That's right; zero reason.

    Raising taxes on the Rich? (none / 0) (#19)
    by Salo on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 12:07:33 PM EST
    The Third Rail of postmodern American politics.

    Doesn't lowering taxes for 98% of working (none / 0) (#69)
    by Farmboy on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 02:15:03 PM EST
    households amount to the same thing?

    Parent
    The tale will be told when they (none / 0) (#23)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 12:16:36 PM EST
    address the estate tax issue - and that has to happen sometime pretty soon - like in the next 6 months, because if the current repeal is retroactive, people will need to get to work on basis issues, and if it is re-enacted in some form retroactively, returns will be due in September for decedent's dying in January, 2010.

    The tax sunsets in 2010, but imposes a "carryover basis" requirement to those who inherit; instead of all of the decedent's assets getting a step-up in value to the value on date of death, the decedent's original basis in the assets will also be the basis in the hands of those who inherit - whether that is individuals or a trust.

    Most of you are too young to remember when we last saw carryover basis, but I can assure you, it was a giant PITA.

    The effect of keeping the decedent's original basis is to - presumably - have the government collecting capital gains taxes from the heirs when the assets are sold.  Ponder that.  

    In 2011, the tax rears its ugly head again, with exemption amounts going from $3.5MM per individual in 2009, and unlimited in 2010, back down to $1.1MM in 2011 and forward.  With the old rates, which are higher.

    This is where we hear about "the death tax" and about the family farm having to be sold to pay the taxes (special use valuation and the 6166 election generally help avoid these hardship situations and prevent farms and businesses from having to be sold, but to hear the GOP tell it, there's an epidemic of it out there, and that just isn't so) - and where we should hear about income inequality, about the growing disparity between the haves and the have-nots, and about how much harder it is for the have-nots to better their situation, so we'll see where Obama comes down on this.

    Whatever his position has been, or was, or is, I would bet my left arm that it will be to the right of wherever it was.

    I am pretty sure one of my friends (none / 0) (#26)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 12:28:23 PM EST
    voted for McCain solely because of her fear of re-imposition of inheritance tax.  Her mother owns a bit of residential real estate.

    Parent
    As my father always says (none / 0) (#33)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 12:39:13 PM EST
    "If I ever win the lottery I'm a Republican five seconds later"

    Parent
    Your contention that Clinton's tax (none / 0) (#27)
    by coast on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 12:30:26 PM EST
    policy was more progressive than Bush's tax policy flies in the face of the actual data.  While the rates may seem more progressive, the actual taxes paid and collected show that Bush's policy was more progressive.  Under Bush's tax cuts, the wealthy paid a greater percentage of the overall tax burden than they paid under Clinton.  From 1992 - 2000, the top 5 percent paid an average of 50.23% of the overall taxes paid.  Under Bush, that percentage increased to an average of 56.93%.  In addition, the percentage of tax returns with zero or no tax liability increased(meaning less people paid tax).  Under Clinton the high was around 25%, under Bush the high was around 32%.


    that has nothing to do (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by CST on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 12:36:02 PM EST
    with how progressive the tax rates were.  It has everything to do with the fact that under Bush the weathly made a killing on their income as compared to the middle class.  So yea, they paid more taxes then.  But that's only because they made so much more money while everyone else made zilch.

    What that shows you is that under Bush, the rich got richer and the poor got poorer.

    Parent

    Reality check (none / 0) (#31)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 12:38:26 PM EST
    Thank YOU!

    Parent
    So how does the rich (none / 0) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 12:58:27 PM EST
    making more money and paying more taxes under Bush
    have anything to do with how much money the "poor" made?

    It is not a zero sum game.

    Parent

    If you read the comment (none / 0) (#49)
    by CST on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 01:10:02 PM EST
    all the way to the bottom you will see that more people paid no taxes at all under Bush.  Which means more people did not make enough money to pay taxes.

    Parent
    No, what it means is that the rates changed (none / 0) (#61)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 01:30:03 PM EST
    For example, about 3 years ago a family of 4 paid no FIT on a gross of about $38000. Today the figure is $39000.

    The lowest tax rate in 2000 was 15%. Under Bush it went to 10%

    Another benefit is the child tax credit which increased to $1000 per child under Bush but will drop to $500 per child next year under Obama.

    Since a credit is a direct cut in what is paid, that is a huge hit.

    BTW - The lowest rate will increase from 10% to 15%.

    So grab your billfold and hide it someplace because next year your taxes are going up!

    Parent

    Child tax credit (none / 0) (#86)
    by waldenpond on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 03:44:13 PM EST
    The threshold level for partial CTC under Bush was set to shift to $12,550 in 2009.  In 2008 it was lowered to $8500.  Under Obama those getting the full $1000 credit has gone from $21,833 to $16,333... making 2.5 million more children eligible for credits.

    Parent
    The income level decrease is good and I (none / 0) (#89)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 04:22:59 PM EST
    am happy to see it.

    But I don't think it changes this:

    The per-child amount was originally set at $400 in 1998, and has since increased to $1000 through tax-year 2010. There is a sunset provision to the Act that set this amount which will bring the amount down to $500 per-child in 2011


    Parent
    Political pet (none / 0) (#90)
    by waldenpond on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 04:40:47 PM EST
    The childcare tax has always been a political pet.  Looks to me that sunset clause was done under Bush.  Obama wants to double the credit to $2000 not drop it to $500.

    Parent
    Works for me (none / 0) (#106)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 07:23:38 PM EST
    Of course Obama wanted a single payer health care...

    Parent
    That retort makes no sense (none / 0) (#50)
    by coast on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 01:14:10 PM EST
    If the top 5% are paying a greater share of the overall tax burden, meaning the remainder is paying less, how is that not more progressive?

    As for the wealthy making a killing under Bush.  You do recall all the money that was made during the Dot Com era don't you.  I think the wealthy made a pretty good killing then too.

    Parent

    it makes perfect sense (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by CST on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 01:16:59 PM EST
    It's basic math.

    We know that their tax rate went down.  We know that they paid a greater share of the taxes.  Therefore, they must have made a much greater share of the money.

    The people paying "less" did not pay less as a percentage of their income.  They paid less as a percentage of the whole because their income did not increase proportionally to the whole.

    That's not progressive.

    Parent

    Really? (none / 0) (#60)
    by coast on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 01:27:53 PM EST
    "The people paying "less" did not pay less as a percentage of their income"

    Tax brackets for the two periods would indicate differently.

    Parent

    sorry (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by CST on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 02:26:50 PM EST
    that's correct, they did pay a little less, but the percentage of taxes paid went down as you go up the income ladder, as compared to previous years.  So my overall point about the math remains.

    "*In 2006, the bottom fifth of income earners got an average tax cut of $20, or 0.3 percent of their income.
    *In 2006, the top fifth of income earners got an average tax cut of $5,800, or 4.1 percent of income. At the very top, the average tax cut was more than 6 percent of income."

    Link

    Parent

    Funny how they (none / 0) (#72)
    by coast on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 02:58:10 PM EST
    pick 2006 for their analysis.  Any particular reason why, considering the Bush's tax cuts began in 2001.  Better analysis would be comparing 2000 to 2001 when the 10% bracket was introduced.  Or even better, 2003 when a majority of the major cuts and adjustments took effect.  I don't pay to much attention to summaries from groups with an agenda.  Go to the IRS data tables, then we can talk.

    Parent
    to be honest (none / 0) (#79)
    by CST on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 03:08:24 PM EST
    I just googled bush tax cuts and that was the site that laid it out as clearly as possible.

    I don't really see an issue with using 2006, it's still a valid year to use.  Frankly, claiming "agenda" is not really much of a claim unless you think they are saying something false.  In which case, refute it.  I hear the IRS has some nice data tables.

    Parent

    The year used makes a huge difference. (none / 0) (#84)
    by coast on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 03:28:38 PM EST
    If the only change that occured that year was a change in say capital gains rates, how much of an impact do you think that would have on the bottom versus the top.  It would impact the higher brackets much more than the lowerr.  But if you look at a year like 2003 when the child tax credit went from $600 to $1,000, who do you think that would benfit more.  The credit was a dollar for dollar reduction in tax.  On a dollar basis its a wash, $400 additional dollars for a high income tax payer is the same as $400 for a low income tax payer.  However, on a percentage basis, which your link uses, individuals with lower tax liabilities made out much better.

    And I doubt they are saying something false, but I certainly think they are framing the results to fit their arguement.  Its what all groups do, which is why I try to use the tables when possible.

    Parent

    also (none / 0) (#81)
    by CST on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 03:17:36 PM EST
    they have a pretty in-depth analysis of all the tax cuts here and their effects on different income groups from 2001-2006.  Same results.

    Also, this is hardly a random left-wing organization.

    Parent

    I would describe Brookings as (none / 0) (#91)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 04:41:53 PM EST
    a think tank..

    But this still goes around to thinking that increasing taxes improves the economy... I have never seen that happen... The Clinton increases slowed the recovery that had started but was helped by the decrease in oil prices and the Internet boom.

    And you can't be factoring in investment income taxes and comparing the result to people's taxes who have no investment income.

    It does not compute.

    Parent

    You don't know ... (none / 0) (#97)
    by nyrias on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 05:55:37 PM EST
    if it is the same people who get richer.

    Just look at Bill Gates. He is worth NOTHING before 1980 and he makes all his money on his own. Obviously it is NOT a case of the rich getting richer.

    The rich is paying more taxes, AS A PERCENTAGE, that is not in dispute though.

    Parent

    Gates was "worth nothing" (none / 0) (#105)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 06:47:12 PM EST
    but also had a trust fund. It's not like he was some Horatio Alger shoeshine boy who grabbed hold of his own bootstraps and pulled himself up from nowhere and nothing.

    Parent
    I think that is in dispute (none / 0) (#119)
    by MO Blue on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 10:12:54 PM EST
    The rich is (are) paying more taxes, AS A PERCENTAGE, that is not in dispute though.

    The Dodgers' former first couple pocketed income totaling $108 million from 2004 through 2009 without paying any federal or state taxes, according to documents Jamie McCourt filed in the couple's divorce case. link

    I paid both federal and state taxes during each of those years with an income in the 300% FPL.

    Parent

    that's actually pretty irrellevant (none / 0) (#129)
    by CST on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 09:01:57 AM EST
    The fact is, the people in the top 5% of wealth in this country have a greater percentage of the total money available than the top 5% did in the past.  Whether they are the same people in that 5% really makes no difference.

    And the fact that there are more people who pay no taxes at all, means there are more people who don't make enough money to pay taxes.

    So the top 5% have more of the money, and there are more people in the bottom.

    The rich are paying more taxes as a percentage of total taxes precisely because they make more money as a percentage of the total money.  But they pay less in taxes as a percentage of their personal income.

    Parent

    Not irrelevant ... (none / 0) (#132)
    by nyrias on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 11:52:18 AM EST
    If everyone has a chance of getting into the top 5%, then we are rewarding hard work, taking risks and innovations.

    If that is the case, top 5% getting more is NOT a problem because that could be you or me.

    Riches is not a guarantee in life. As long as the game is fair, i have no problem the talented makes a lot more. Can you design a new drug to cure a disease? Don't you think the scientist who can do so should make a lot more than those who flip burgers?

    You last statement is wrong. Because of the increasing tax rate, the rich are paying MORE taxes as a precentage of their personal income than the poor. In fact, simple example illustrate that. If you are below the poverty line, you pay NO taxes (0% on ur income). Obviously the riches pay more as a % of their income.

    Parent

    The bush tax cuts (none / 0) (#134)
    by CST on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 12:37:40 PM EST
    lowered the tax rate that the rich pay on their personal income.  Yes, they still pay more than the poor but that's not what I was saying.

    And give me a break, the game is not fair.  Go to any inner-city public school and compare it to one in Westchester and you will see exactly what I mean.

    And just as an FYI - I guarantee that the scientist who designs drugs to cure diseases is not in that top 5%.  It's a nice line to push since everyone loves a good scientist.  But the reality is, it's the guy who pays the scientist to develop that cure, and then goes on to market and sell it that is making bank.  Because our current system values the ability to sell more than the ability to create.  That's just how it goes.

    Personally, I don't think that makes the seller more "talented" than the scientist.  It just means they make more money.

    Parent

    Taxes are a tool (none / 0) (#64)
    by Gisleson on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 01:49:33 PM EST
    but the real fight is in getting the media to acknowledge that the self-privileging classes have gamed the pay scales.

    To date my best annual income in real dollars was as a new hire doing grunt labor for Firestone Tire & Rubber in 1973-74. Thanks to inflation and a decline in union bargaining power, my paychecks never caught up and no job since has paid me the $59,000 a year that $8 an hour in 1974 dollars equals today.

    But this is about much more than just me. From 1989-2002 I did about 7,000 resumes for clients. During that time it almost became axiomatic that any client making over $80k a year was some financial douchebag who was harming the system far more than helping. [Most well paid professionals are in stable careers and not seeking out resume writers.]

    After you hear a few dozen of them spout their jargonized version of a job description, you come to appreciate that they really don't do anything but sit around trying to figure out how to steal from those who work for their money.

    Fixing income inequality and shutting down Wall Street's corruption mill are two inseparable issues. This is a good issue for TalkLeft to use to move the dialogue left a bit.

    Oops (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Gisleson on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 01:52:51 PM EST
    just checked my math (and an inflation calculator). That entry level job actually paid $71,000 a year in today's dollars. Otoh, I have NEVER worked that hard before or since, and I grew up on an Iowa farm.

    Parent
    Well, may be that is because you don't get a .. (none / 0) (#99)
    by nyrias on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 05:59:58 PM EST
    quality education and get into the right field.

    I have a college buddy who came from a poor family, did really well in school and went to work for Oracle. He rise up the ranks, net a huge amount in stock options and now he opened and runs his own company. Perfect example of some talent and hard work breeds success.

    There are plenty of opportunities for those who are talented, and motivated.  

    Parent

    Aren't the upper Income portions (none / 0) (#80)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 03:10:04 PM EST
    of the Bush tax cuts set to expire- returning them to the Clinton levels- I thought the strategy was to let them expire on their own (this year or the next) thus reaping the policy benefit without paying a major political cost? Isn't that just smart politics?

    And, I'm sorry but I will argue on Tax shifts being the biggest progessive policy move since LBJ- heck I'd argue that its not even Clinton's most progressive achievement- that would be federal support for SCHIP, but then again I have a hard time ranking taxes as a massive achievement in line with Healthcare reform simply because one's so easy to undo- essentially what you're arguing is that Bill Clinton's biggest legacy item was something that lasted 6 years, and I'm sorry but while I wouldn't rank Clinton with say LBJ, FDR or Truman I'd certainly put him above George HW Bush who also increased taxes to balance the budget.

    The Bush tax cuts lowered my tax burden... (none / 0) (#118)
    by Honyocker on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 09:45:42 PM EST
    and I support a household on less than 50k a year (yes, I know, trailer park trash chump change to the Democratic political class in America).  Thank goodness for the Bush tax cuts, which actually lowered tax rates for people in the working class income brackets. That members of the progressive left refuse to recognize this, and give bush credit where credit is due, says volumes about the progressive left.

    no one is talking about (none / 0) (#130)
    by CST on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 09:06:45 AM EST
    raising your taxes.

    Parent