home

A Bizarre Critique Of Progressive Taxation

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 03:10:15 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I like Jon Walker of FDL, but this post is bizarre.

Walker criticizes increasing taxes on the wealthy in order to modify the excise tax. Wha? That's neither smart nor progressive.

What's up with that?

Speaking for me only

< Lincoln, Bayh Reject Reconciliation For Health Bill | DOJ Touts Success of Criminal Terror Cases >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    A Bizarre Critique Of Progressive Taxation | 70 comments (70 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    As BTD points out the excise tax is a tax (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by esmense on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 03:49:40 PM EST
    increase. And furthermore, it is one that threatens to decrease the health care benefits, and increase the out of pocket health care costs, for millions of Americans.

    Increasing the medicare contribution of the most affluent, on the other hand, helps pay for expanding coverage to some middle class and poor Americans without asking those taxpayers or other middle and working class Americans to pay not only pay more, but to -- most unacceptable of all -- pay more for less.  

    Invisible outlay, unacknowledged hardships (none / 0) (#49)
    by Ellie on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 09:42:47 PM EST
    Our extended family had to make hard choices when we made our own do-it-yourself health care (and insurance) our priority.

    As it stands, the various insurance coverage plans I have -- as both a contract worker and longterm employee with a crazy-quilt of coverage -- cobbles together into a so-called Cadillac Plan.

    Yet to keep this intact, I must juggle various residence requirements and other qualifiers. (TMI: Husb and I live apart for 4-6 mos/yr, if I don't keep an eye on salary vs. bonuses, or retainers vs. personal/retirement investments and other non-health related outlays, I get taxed taxed taxed taxed taxed taxed and taxed.)

    Oh, and the fun part is the prospect of paying extra for having female plumbing because Ben Nelson won't have an abortion.

    Parent

    FDL folks want to be TV pundits & get rich (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Yes2Truth on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 04:28:42 PM EST

    To accomplish that, it's more likely to happen if
    your viewpoint is more like that of those who can hire you.

    As Bill C. said:  "Isn't it obvious?".

    It especially helps to already be affluent enough (none / 0) (#32)
    by esmense on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 05:50:44 PM EST
    to enjoy an elite education and very good contacts in the industry.

    Why do you think there are so many 2nd generation names in the media and the pundit class?

    Parent

    Yes, that must be why (none / 0) (#33)
    by observed on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 05:55:17 PM EST
    they supported the public option, and why Jane proposed an alliance with Grover Norquist.


    Parent
    Let's not confuse support for a marketing slogan (none / 0) (#36)
    by lambert on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 06:30:06 PM EST
    like [a|the] [strong|robust|triggered] public [health insurance]? [option|plan] with support for an actual policy that can demonstrably save live and money, mkay?

    Parent
    Public option as offset (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by joanneleon on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 05:08:19 PM EST
    I agree with his point that the public option offers $ savings and is a popular, therefore it's the best way to get those dollars.

    But I also agree that smacking down progressive taxation is not helpful.

    So, his point, as I see it, is that if there is a popular way to get those dollars, use the popular alternative rather than open yourself up to the firestorm that will come from the Republicans.  But what he's failing to see is that if framed correctly, a few extra percentage points of taxation on the wealthiest few could play very well in this environment.  They'd have to sell it correctly, making it clear that 90+ % of the wealth in this country is held by the top 1%, and so on.

    And lastly, the excise tax is a huge mistake to begin with, IMHO.  No self respecting Democrat should be supporting any excise tax, because it's a slippery slope.  It will be tweaked every time money is needed for federal health care spending.  And even the society of Actuaries says that because of the rapid rate of medical inflation, it's going to hit a lot more people than intended, in a relatively short period of time.

    So I'd vote for both the public option and progressive taxation, and ditch that excise tax in a NY minute.  That would do away with the union carve out issue too.

    Read it... (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Jackson Hunter on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 06:13:03 PM EST
    um, yeah, I honestly don't get his point.  As I just posted in a TINS diary at DK, Obama needs to become a populist and do it in a hurry.

    Yes, TINS actually wrote a devasting entry about the negative frame the spending freeze hurts progressive chances.  I tipped and recced a TINS diary.  Never thought I'd type that.  Either the worm is turning or the Twilight Zone is here!  LOL

    Jackson

    Hey, even IBS is doubting now. (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by observed on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 06:23:19 PM EST


    Parent
    I'm sure this post is relevant, so ... (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by cymro on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 07:14:48 PM EST
    ... it would help if it were written in intelligible English, not an amalgam of acronyms, abbreviations, metaphors, and ungrammatical sentences.

    Parent
    Thank you (none / 0) (#48)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 09:18:00 PM EST
    Well said.

    Parent
    Sorry! (none / 0) (#50)
    by Jackson Hunter on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 11:32:59 PM EST
    1, for all of the acronymns, and 2, for the late reply, I doubt that you'll ever see this though.

    TINS= There Is No Spoon, who was once a extremely vocal supporter of Obama at DK, which equals Daily Kos.  I forget that not everyone followed all of the drama.  I did, even though I wasn't involved.  I'll be clearer next time.

    Jackson

    Parent

    Apology accepted! Thanks for replying ... (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by cymro on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 05:06:53 AM EST
    ... with an explanation.

    Parent
    No problem. (none / 0) (#71)
    by Jackson Hunter on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 01:30:33 PM EST


    Parent
    Easier to reject tax increases because they are (none / 0) (#1)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 03:25:24 PM EST
    unpopular than to make the case for them and make them tolerable, if not popular.

    This is the Dem instance of political malpractice that makes other goals infinitely harder to achieve.

    I'd love to see an economic populist (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 03:28:15 PM EST
    approach. "Yes, we're going to soak the rich! They benefitted from those increases in prices, now it's time to reap what they have sown!"

    I doubt it would get much traction, but I'd love to see it.

    Parent

    It would get traction (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 03:28:47 PM EST


    Parent
    I just wish someone would try it for once (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 03:45:20 PM EST


    Parent
    Oh, dear! (none / 0) (#22)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 05:04:35 PM EST
    David Broder wouldn't like that atall, atall.  That's "class warfare," doncha know.

    Parent
    But only for the right policy. (none / 0) (#21)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 05:03:47 PM EST
    I read the gist of that article as being a general critique of using the tax levers for the current plan.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I got the sense that if they intend to stick with the basics of the current plan sans public option among other things, the tax increases may not be worth the political heat they could draw.  And I am not sure that I am inclined to totally disagree with that position - you should keep in mind that I did have a Republican doctor from SC and MS (originally) look me in the eye and ask me why this Congress couldn't just pass single payer.  He, along with most other Republicans that I've spoken to, was highly suspicious of this convoluted mess of a bill as it currently stands.  FWIW...

    Parent
    But what happens jeff... (none / 0) (#28)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 05:31:42 PM EST
    if what they really meant by trickle down was every tax increase trickling on down to the middle/working classes shoulders to bear.

    Besides, if anything we should have a wealthy tax, not a rich tax.  Chris Rock will tell ya all about it.  

    Isn't it odd that the wealthy are never mentioned...sh*t with the wage trend vs. costs the last 20 years you could say rich is the new middle class, middle class the new working class, working class is now poor and sun god help ya if you're old school poor.

    Parent

    rich=wealthy in my book, kdog-- (none / 0) (#52)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 07:21:27 AM EST
    top 10-15 percent of earners (more or less, top 20, top 25, that works for me also). When I say earners, I'm not talking about simply wages, but capital gains and trust funds, too.
    definitionional difference of rich v wealthy doesn't much matter to me-- like saying a baseball player who earns 10 million is rich, but a trust fund baby with 1 million a year in an annuity is wealthy... both can pay more;-)

    Parent
    Any thoughts as... (none / 0) (#53)
    by kdog on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 07:42:47 AM EST
    to whether the state has an actual need for more dough?  Could we not fund the best most readily available healthcare and delivery systems in the history of the world with a simple reallocation of government receivables at current taxation levels?

    Because we all know the top 10-15% don't just eat tax increases...it trickles down one way or another to the guy with a negative balance in his checking account...way of the world man.  They're the top 10-15% for a reason...

    Parent

    capita; accumulation of that percentage between (none / 0) (#66)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 11:13:32 AM EST
    1975 and now hasn't trickled down, even with a growing 'pie,' if you will. Only during the last two ( possibly three) years of the Clinton presidency did real wages adjusted for inflation increase for the bottom 60 percent of wage earners in the US. Every year from 1975 to now (possibly with this year and last year excepted, the recession has hit across the board) real inflation-adjusted income has increased for the top 40 percent, with the top quintile getting the greatest increases.

    Kdog, I'm a believer in redistribution. Call it class warfare if you want. Those that have benefitted the most by virtue of success or parentage have an obligation to those who haven't. Nobody got where they are alone. As to how much I'd cut from one area to put to another, I can't see the books. But the debt needs to be paid down for a few years before we talk about folks getting more money. I'd like to see free public education through the baccalaureate for anyone finishing in the top 50 percent of their graduating class in high school. doesn't mean that they'd automatically pass courses, some folks dont like or want to go to school, but let's build in that equality of opportunity.

    I'd like to see free health care available. Want to keep your private insurance? fine by me. If you cut yourself at home, drive to the free clinic. need a vaccination? drive to the free clinic.  In New York, there are still free hospitals, aren't there? Used to be, anyway.

    equality of opportunity would be expensive. I happen to think it's worth it. Some folks don't think so. would or could these be covered by what government takes in now? I doubt it because of the huge borrowing of the last 10 years. So, from those who have gained (the upper two quintiles), let them help to build a better society. Trickle down doesn't work effectively enough, if it does at all. that 'rising tide lifting all boats' only works when everyone has a boat.

    Parent

    Thanks for taking the time jeff.... (none / 0) (#69)
    by kdog on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 01:19:29 PM EST
    Those that have benefitted the most by virtue of success or parentage have an obligation to those who haven't

    If I believed higher taxes would help fulfill that obligation, I'd probably be right there with ya...but I just don't see it bro.

    Parent

    Modifying the ecise tax by taxing the (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 03:26:50 PM EST
    rich will be popular.

    Parent
    But the excise tax needs to be modified for (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by steviez314 on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 07:28:14 PM EST
    everyone--raise the limits, index to infaltion and make up the difference with a tax on the rich.

    If the excise tax "fix" only applies to union members (which is one fix they were working on), there are going to be a WHOLE lot of non-union people who will fall under the original excise tax proposal who are going to be very very upset.

    Parent

    It should be (none / 0) (#5)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 03:31:16 PM EST
    but I think any mention of tax increases for anybody gets a reflex negative reaction from most people unless it is explained and they are persuaded.  And no one is doing the explaining at the moment.

    Parent
    Um (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 03:33:47 PM EST
    the excise tax is a tax increase, not just for the rich though.

    Parent
    Aimed at worker's benefits (none / 0) (#11)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 03:55:01 PM EST
    whether you call them 'Cadillac' or not. Not exactly progressive. I could support a generalized progressive income tax increase to pay for the health care subsidies. I think that goes down better than targeting it at certain workers.

    But then they could not argue that it would lower insurance costs.

    Parent

    I think the political issue (none / 0) (#7)
    by lilburro on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 03:41:07 PM EST
    with this particular increase is it's potential to be seen as a tax raise designed to preserve union benefits.  Walker seems to be setting up a public option v. tax increase battle.  Which I would guess is just a device to make a reconciliation bill with a PO more appealing.  But it's also hippie punching as BTD might say.

    But yeah I wish somebody would be willing to argue for more progressive taxation.  

    Parent

    And why wouldn't we want to preserve union (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by esmense on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 04:11:52 PM EST
    benefits? Because Democrats want to send the message that union members are greedy villans?

    How can undermining the benefits some Americans (not simply members of unions, but older women and the many Americans who buy their own insurance) have now in order to provide benefits to a few others be called reform?

    That's not progress. It's standing still and just spreading the suffering a little thinner and broader.

     

    Parent

    Then set it up straight (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 03:41:59 PM EST


    Parent
    I can't see how the government... (none / 0) (#12)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 03:57:37 PM EST
    I've known my whole life could possibly make the case for any kind of tax increase whatsoever with a straight face...I mean just look at some of the ways they spend money.

    The only way the people would be receptive to a tax increase argument, no matter how sound, is if the government simply showed they were serious about the need for funds in new areas by taking it from areas that only do no good, but actually cause great harm...then I'd be ready to listen.  Till then, try suckering somebody else cuz I ain't buyin'.

    Soak the rich only has so much appeal...when we gonna soak the tyrants.

    Parent

    There are tons of young and low wage earners (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by esmense on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 04:22:49 PM EST
    in this country who are paying taxes to support medicare for much more affluent Americans -- yet, cannot afford to buy insurance coverage for themselves.

    For chrissake, if Americans don't find that blatant inequity politically unpalatable, why would they object to a small increase in medicare payments for the most affluent?

    If you take a minute to think about it -- which most kneejerk anti-taxers don't -- it, and their arguments, don't make sense.

    Parent

    Mind if I take 2 minutes? (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 05:13:28 PM EST
    If my shop didn't have an insurance plan I'd still be one of those relatively young & low wage earners without insurance...now I'm a relatively young middle to low wage earner with crappy insurance.  fwiw

    I'm well aware of those deductions on my check, as is every wage earner...but what the brain dead intellectualistas don't get is to many of us its one deduction (or 2 if your state taxes income)...from gross to net.  We see old people getting checks after workin' all their life outta that, we're cool.  We see the old and the poor gettin' healthcarewe're cool...only the whacky wingers object to this stuff.

    We also see war and occupation...if we're really paying attention we what the complex is up to when we're not currently occuplying or front page warring....we see lie cheat steal and skim up the wazoo...then we see the slightly less of an arsehole we may have voted for asking for more money...but not from us of course (until we buy pack of cigs that is)...and if we go wtf about all this sh*t we're the anti-tax arsehole who doesn't have the proper disdain for "rich" people making chump change themselves in the big scheme.  

    Show people like me one thing...the serious attempt to reallocate some current tax funds before asking for more...then we'll listen. Because everybody knows you gotta pay a nut...the question is, is your nut being wasted.  And if it is, will you stand for it.

    Parent

    Follow that logic, and everyone should (none / 0) (#17)
    by observed on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 04:27:09 PM EST
    pay a flat tax---not the same rate, but the same dollar amount. It's the fairest way, right?
    Only someone who's against a level playing field could oppose this proposal!

    Parent
    Of course not (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by esmense on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 05:32:17 PM EST
    A flat tax is incredibly inequitable -- it steals resources from the young whose earnings are modest and expenses are great -- who must spend their more limited resources (compared to their elders) to acquire assets, gain education, training and experience, develop careers and businesses, establish homes and families, provide for the education of their children and save for their own retirements. And it does so in order to to give tax breaks to their most affluent elders who, with such investments behind them, are enjoying their highest earning years, and who also enjoy much more disposable income (which they can invest in assets to enrich themselves further).

    The truth is that in a broadly middle class society (as the US once was at least -- before we started flattening our tax rates) the largest differences between rich and poor can be explained by age.

    Progressive taxation, far from penalizing people who "work hard and build wealth" actually subsidizes them. It allows those without significant inherited assets to reap the benefits of both lower taxation AND significant public investment (in education, physical, commercial, social and cultural infrastructure, etc.) in their youth, and yet defer the payment for that investment until their higher earning, greater disposable income years. What could be fairer than that?

    The truth is, the only people who really benefit from a flat tax are heirs and older earners. But they do so at a cost to everyone else, and our economy's ability to renew itself.

    If you want to know how we got to the stagnant place we are in, you don't have to look any further than our foolish tax policy. A policy based on the totally wrong and offensive assumption that differences in wealth are best explained by differences in moral value.

    If any of you have adult children at home, you can a lot of the blame on conservative tax policy.

    Parent

    Sorry, you misread a joke (none / 0) (#30)
    by observed on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 05:44:46 PM EST
    as being serious; however, proponents of the flat tax are deaf to Progressive arguments.

    Parent
    Do you remember the (none / 0) (#31)
    by observed on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 05:46:11 PM EST
    "lucky ducky" class---as named by the WSJ in the 90s?
    These are the people who earn so little that they don't have to pay any income tax, making them ever so lucky.


    Parent
    Yes. (none / 0) (#37)
    by esmense on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 06:32:55 PM EST
    Unfortunately, because those WSJ jerks refuse to pay up now that their tax bill is coming due, today's younger "lucky ducky" class is going to have a much harder time moving into the kind of affluence they enjoy.

    Anyone alive today who entered adulthood before the Reagan years, benefitted in their youth from the low or nonexistent income taxes (and much lower payroll taxes) and high public investment -- in education, in cultural institutions, infrastructure like the interstate highway system, high tech research, etc. -- that progressive taxation bestowed on those just beginning their economic lives.

    In maturity, those generations have voted themselves a way to keep their cake and eat it too, by shirking the higher tax bill that should now, in their highest earning years, be coming due and instead increasing the tax burden (federal, state, local, payroll) on today's young earners. Much higher taxes than they were required to pay in their own seriously "lucky ducky" youth.

    Progressive taxation requires that affluent elders pay it forward. If they don't keep their end of the bargain and do so, economic stagnation and stratification, and the kind of immense and growing gulf between rich and poor, between  established and inherited wealth and everyone else, that we are experiencing now is the result.

    If you entered the workforce after the Reagan revolution you didn't enjoy the progressive tax relief, or the significant public investment in the nation's economic life, that your elders did in their youth.

    Asking you to now pay higher taxes so that your children and grandchildren can get a better deal is, understandably, a hard sell. But unless you are willing to do that -- and, most important, to demand that affluent boomers step up to the plate before they step into their expensive (for you, your children and grandchildren) retirement -- we won't be able to solve the problems we face now or deal with the much bigger problems looming down the road.


    Parent

    I would just point out that the boomers (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by caseyOR on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 07:25:42 PM EST
    you seem so riled up at have been paying higher FICA taxes since the Reagan years. And we have done so because the Greenspan commission that was appointed to figure out how to "save" Medicare and Social Security, told us if we did not pay more our parents and grandparents would have to eat cat food. We were also told that by paying more we, the baby boomers, would be helping future generations (our children and grandchildren) because we would also be pre-paying for our own Medicare and SS.

    And so we agreed to pay more. We agreed to pay more with the understanding that we were putting money away for our retirement needs. So, the idea that now these programs must be cut because the money isn't there is outrageous. There should be a big pot of money labeled "Baby Boomer Old Age Dollars" sitting safe and sound on the government balance sheet.

    I am really getting tired of this claim that boomers are selfish b@stards who care only about themselves. We aren't the ones who voted for Reagan. That honor goes to the Gen Xers.

    That said, you are right. I, as a boomer, benefitted from a nation that believed in education and funded it. Not only was my college tuition much less than today's, my student loans were at 2% interest and they were government loans, managed by the federal government. I never had to deal with the financial industry. Nobody was trying to make a big quarterly profit off my student loans.

    The Reagan years were disastrous for the nation. I fear we will never recover. But you can't just blame everything on the baby boom generation. This generational warfare is not going to get us anywhere.

    Parent

    I not certainly didn't say the boomers were (none / 0) (#45)
    by esmense on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 08:44:37 PM EST
    selfish bastards who care only about themselves. I happen to be a boomer myself and I, like others I know, would gladly pay more taxes for things like universal health care and investment in the research, technology and infrastructure that can help get our economy moving again. I simply pointed out that older boomers were among those who benefitted from progressive taxation in their youth and that now, before they start retiring in droves, we need to ask the most affluent among them to step up to the plate to help the country prepare for their retirement.

    You are correct that boomers, like Gen X and young Americans now entering the workforce, did start paying higher FICA taxes starting in the Reagan years. But, those taxes ended up being funding tax breaks for the affluent rather than, as we were told they would, help secure benefits for our retirement.

    It's unfair and unfortunate but we may have to pitch in again in some way to make up for the social security funds that were lost to war and tax breaks.

    Parent

    That should read "certainly did not" (none / 0) (#46)
    by esmense on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 08:45:21 PM EST
    Getting a little tired at this point.

    Parent
    Point of clarification (none / 0) (#55)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:48:34 AM EST
    It was not "Gen Xers" who voted for Reagan.  the oldest Gen Xers were born in 1965 - which would have made them 15 when Reagan was elected the first time. So some of them may have been able to vote for him in 1984 (but then again, people in 49 of 50 states voted for him across the board).

    So, please do not put the blame on us for Reagan!  It really WAS the baby boomers, who became the yuppies of the 80s who are responsible!

    Parent

    GenX started in 1961, at least (none / 0) (#58)
    by Cream City on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 10:22:02 AM EST
    per most demographers, dating it as the generation after the baby boom, and most date that as ending  ended in 1960 (when The Pill was released on the market, no coincidence:-).  Some demographers date the end of the boom by 1957, though, when it fell below some measure or other based on previous eras.

    Anyway: Some GenXers definitely voted in 1980 and voted for Reagan, and many pundits and political analyses did attribute his victory to the winning margine of the "angry young white men."  Some of those were the last boomers, of course.  

    But that is why the election was seen as transitional (which became transformational in today's terms).

    Parent

    Interesting (none / 0) (#59)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 10:27:05 AM EST
    Sine most definitions of the Baby Boomers have them being born unbtil 1964 - which is why Obama really is a Baby Boomer.

    And here's at least one person who agrees with me:

    Sandwiched between 80 million baby boomers and 78 million millennials, Generation X -- roughly defined as anyone born between 1965 and 1980 -- has just 46 million members, making it a dark-horse demographic "condemned by numbers alone to nicheville," as Gordinier puts it in the book. "I don't really understand the tyranny of the boomer moment," Gordinier says. "Great, you had a party in Haight-Ashbury in 1967, I'm thrilled for you. Can we hear about the flappers in the 1920s instead? How about the Great Depression? There's other times in history that are interesting."


    Parent
    Baby boomers (none / 0) (#61)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 10:32:10 AM EST
    The US Census Bureau lists the Baby Boomers as those born between 1946 and 1964.

    Parent
    Yes -- as noted above (none / 0) (#67)
    by Cream City on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 11:51:01 AM EST
    demographers disagree -- especially as to whether the U.S. Census Bureau gets to decide such things.  The historians of the census are fascinating on this.

    Parent
    Actually, it was WWII and Silent Generation voters (none / 0) (#62)
    by esmense on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 10:37:45 AM EST
    who were most responsible for Reagan. Those were the generations reaching their peak earning years, and therefore their peak taxpaying years, and entering retirement in the late 70s. Raging inflation was pushing those generations into higher tax brackets while at the same time robbing them of buying power. And, it was devasting the fixed incomes of those in or entering retirement.

    As for Boomers like myself at that time -- we were still pretty young and still enjoying the benefits that progressive taxation provides to those just starting their economic life.

    Plus, in their youth, boomers' voting participation was rather weak (when people get excited about turn out among today's young people it is compared to the lack of political enthusiasm my generation exhibited.)

    While som Boomers certainly voted for Reagan, the truth is that, as is generally the case, he owed his election to older, more affluent voters (the voters who are most likely to turn out) and to the affect inflation was having on both their taxes and assets.  

    Parent

    Good points (none / 0) (#68)
    by Cream City on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 11:57:35 AM EST
    and I agree; I lived in Reagan country then (shudder), one of the strongest counties for Reagan and the GOP in the '80s.  It was a land of "white flight" from the cities and, y'know, "those people," as the population had mushroomed in the late '60s and early '70s -- when it was the fastest-growing county in the country.  And the people who could afford it were not young; they were the "Silent Generation," especially.

    I'll tell ya, it was hard for this voter to keep participating then -- as there were so few Dems there that there often were many races with no Dems on the ballot.  The local party, which was about four people, even ran ads in the local paper begging for anyone to run for anything, just for the sake of a fake at a two-party system.

    Btw, it remained one of the reddest counties in the country right into this millennium.  It faded only slightly in 2008, but that was GOP voters staying home.  I fully expect to see it go neon, glow-in-the-night red again next time.

    Parent

    Piffle (none / 0) (#57)
    by me only on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 10:19:13 AM EST
    I am really getting tired of this claim that boomers are selfish b@stards who care only about themselves. We aren't the ones who voted for Reagan. That honor goes to the Gen Xers.

    Generation X is generally defined as the generation born in years 1961-1981.  Those born in 1963-1981 did not vote for Reagan's first term because they were not old enough to vote for Reagan.  Those born from 1967-1981 were not old enough to vote for Reagan in '84.  Sorry to use facts to on you.  The Baby Boomer generation voted Reagan into office.

    Parent

    Depends on who you read (none / 0) (#60)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 10:29:43 AM EST
    I never said they were selfish.  

    And another one:

    So far, parents like Hutchins and Cunningham have helped drive up sales of organic baby-care products to $15 million in 2006 from $12 million the previous year, and organic baby food to $235 million in 2006 from $206 million in 2005, according to the Organic Trade Association.

    That trend is likely to continue as more members of Generation X -- defined roughly as those born between 1965 and 1979 -- start families. Parenthood, market researchers say, is turning the "whatever" generation into hyper-vigilant homebodies.

    "We're the first to be raised in day care in record numbers. Forty percent of us were latchkey kids. We were raised on television and Star Wars. We have an abiding fear of being left alone or feeling abandoned, so we will do anything to avoid recreating that in our own children's experience. We're ultra protective," said Susan Gregory Thomas, author of Buy Buy Baby, a book about baby-product marketing.




    Parent
    Sometimes I wonder what you are (none / 0) (#63)
    by me only on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 10:43:28 AM EST
    trying to say.  If your definition of Gen X (1965-1979) is used, than the point that Gen X did not vote for Reagan is even stronger.  No one born in those years elected Reagan because none of them could vote in 1980.

    Anyone who goes back and looks at the poll numbers from the 1980 election can see that Reagan's greatest margin of victory was in the age group 30-44, in other words Baby Boomers. (Those 18-21 years old, which coincide with the most widely used definition of the early Gen X actually went for Carter).

    Parent

    That was my original point (none / 0) (#65)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 10:55:39 AM EST
    Gen Xer could not have voted for Reagan (which I said), since they were 15.  Some here are using the definition of Gen Xer to back up to 1961.

    Parent
    Sometimes you are just (none / 0) (#14)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 04:13:09 PM EST
    so Republican.

    Sorry guy, the Devil made me do it!

    ;-)

    Parent

    Well, if the Republicans would (none / 0) (#15)
    by observed on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 04:15:08 PM EST
    take up Kdog's favorite vice, they would be more mellow about having higher taxex.

    Parent
    Works for me... (none / 0) (#25)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 05:15:59 PM EST
    to keep my mellow under tyranny-lite, ask your doctor if its right for you:)

    Parent
    They always give you the happy juice (none / 0) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 05:26:41 PM EST
    before they start to cut.

    Parent
    I agree with you on that point (none / 0) (#19)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 04:35:07 PM EST
    Part of the argument for tax increases has to be good use of the money. I can see why they are giving up on selling tax increases if they have given up on being smart about where the money goes.

    Parent
    The joys of collecting... (none / 0) (#54)
    by kdog on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 07:45:44 AM EST
    at the barrel of a gun, eh ruffian?  You need not be smart about how you spend the collections, need not serve your customers...you only need bullets, chains, and cages.

    Parent
    Walker prefers the PO (none / 0) (#20)
    by Manuel on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 04:49:06 PM EST
    I wish the left critics of HCR would carefully criticize the various proposals from the left.  Sometimes they echo (on purpose?) right wing frames.

    Which so-called PO? (none / 0) (#38)
    by lambert on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 06:34:37 PM EST
    The original concept from Hacker, which was Medicare-style with 130 million enrollees, or the concept near the end of the sausage making process, with under 10 million?

    I ask because [a|the][strong|robust|triggered] public [health insurance]? [option|plan] advocates, for whatever reason, seem to see little difference between the two.

    Parent

    It sounds like the amaller one (none / 0) (#41)
    by Manuel on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 07:01:36 PM EST
    with the potential to grow aka the camel's nose.  Alas, poor camel!

    Parent
    "It sounds like..." (none / 0) (#64)
    by lambert on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 10:53:16 AM EST
    Check.

    Translation: Vaporware, invented by the marketing department.

    Parent

    Since he would rather have a public option (none / 0) (#26)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 05:21:03 PM EST
    I take it that he wants to push for that now instead of only focusing on how to best pay for subsidizing the insurance companies.  Push push push

    Since the unions traded wage increases ... (none / 0) (#39)
    by lambert on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 06:35:35 PM EST
    ... of health benefits, it's only natural that a Republican administration would try to claw them back. Oh, wait...

    class warfare equals... (none / 0) (#47)
    by Dadler on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 08:50:11 PM EST
    ...being at war with those who have no class, whose parents never taught them the meanings of the words enough and share.

    They better do something fast, then (none / 0) (#56)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 09:57:40 AM EST
    As I said before, most people think either of the two bills currently in the Congress are not good and don't want either version passed - excise tax or not.

    Washington (CNN) - Only three in ten Americans say they want Congress to pass legislation similar to the health care reform bills that have already been approved by the House and Senate, according to a new national poll.

    A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey also indicates that nearly half the public, 48 percent, would like federal lawmakers to start work on an entirely new bill, and 21 percent feel Congress should stop working an any bills that would change the country's health care system.
    How about a little reality? (none / 0) (#70)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 01:21:41 PM EST

    Here is a link to an MSNBC piece on tax revenue last year.

    In summary the income tax revenue down 18%.

    The corporate tax revenue down 57%.

    The social security tax revenue down 1%.

    The problem with basing a program's revenue source on high earners or corporations is their income is much more subject to big declines in a business downturn.  

    Someone should explain why the proposal of funding health care on volitile revenue sources is good politics.

    A Bizarre Critique Of Progressive Taxation | 70 comments (70 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment