home

The Case For Progressive Taxation

Jon Chait writes:

The biggest change in American politics over the past three decades is that the Republican Party has embraced, with the fervor of religion, the conviction that that tax rates need only be high enough to fund their desired level of government spending, rather than the actual level of spending. (How this came to be is the subject of my book.) There really no solution to the problem of American fiscal policy until the GOP can reform itself.

(Emphasis supplied.) This is actually wrong. Republicans desire the actual level of spending but simply never want to pay for it (and never do.) The national debt and deficit is a result almost entirely of the profligate fiscal practices of 2 Republicans - Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. Only one GOP President in recent history has been serious about the budget deficit - Bush 41. He was practically thrown out of the Republican Party. It is because of this that anyone who actually cares about deficits should always support higher taxes on the wealthy and on corporations. because that is the only fiscal measure that will actually cut the deficit. More . . .

Consider the Obama Administration's ridiculous SPENDING! FREEZE!! gimmick. Everyone knows it will do nothing about the deficit. Absolutely nothing. Why? Because 80% of federal government expenditures - Social Security, Medicare, defense, interest payments) are exempted from the freeze (indeed, they are de facto exempted always.)

Expenditures will NEVER go down in a serious way. Thus, the only way to bring down budget deficits is to increase revenue. And the only way to do that is to increase taxes.

Since we must increase taxes, the question becomes on who? The best policy is to increase taxes on the wealthy and on corporations. This is true for a number of reasons. First, taxing the wealthy as opposed to the middle class and the less well off has a smaller negative effect on overall demand. Since the wealthy have more disposable income, their demand is less elastic than that of the less well off.

Second, it lessens income inequality. Income inequality is more than just an intangible concern. Income inequality seeps into every aspect of our society and government. It effects the Common Good concept in deleterious ways. It creates a tiered society that breeds social resentments and harmful demagoguery.

Third, it is fair. the wealthy draw more benefits from our social contract than the less well off. The protection of property rights, part of our social contract, mostly benefits the wealthy. Since the primary function of government is to enforce the social contract, and since the wealthy are the biggest beneficiaries of our social contract, they should pay more for government.

Speaking for me only

< Saturday Morning Open Thread | Obama: Tax Cuts for The Rich = Gov't Spending >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    We could tax wealth (5.00 / 0) (#2)
    by Manuel on Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 11:24:01 AM EST
    as well as income.  The estate tax modifications expire this year.  I wonder what the deficit hawks will do. I am guessing that they will quietly let it revert back to the way it used to be (with minor tweaks).

    Cheney said (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 12:07:25 PM EST
    Reagan proved that deficits don't matter.....

    Funny how cutting taxes for the wealthy always is followed by deficits.

    I think there may be some (none / 0) (#1)
    by robotalk on Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 11:01:11 AM EST
    cynicism in the tax the middle class strategem.  The very wealthy may never pay their fair share, because they have fancy accountants and lawyers to game the system and it is just too expensive for the govt. to really collect from them.

    A simplification of the tax code is probably a necessary corollary to taxing the rich more.

    If government (none / 0) (#6)
    by cal1942 on Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 01:11:33 PM EST
    invests in IRS agents then much of that revenue can be recovered.

    Cuts in IRS agents happened during Clinton's watch and W. Bush's watch.

    The Obama administration, I uderstand, added 1000 IRS agents. A good start but let's have more.

    Parent

    Of course the Libertarian absolutists (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by jondee on Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 01:45:41 PM EST
    always immediately frame that as an increase in tyranny and loss of "freedom", as if with just a couple of tweaks we're just around the corner from the right wing version of 72 virgins -- with no compromises, trade-offs or duties of citizenship required.

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#11)
    by cal1942 on Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 02:01:14 PM EST
    that's the attitude.  

    Tough.

    IMO Libertarians are nothing more than Republicans who want to do drugs.

    I was going to say extremist Republicans but that's a waste since the GOP consists entirely of extremists.

    And I heartily agree with you. Today's Republicans, Libertarians, whatever label they place on themselves aren't even remotely capable of understanding that paying taxes is the first duty of citizenship.  As far as I'm concerned they're nothing but freeloaders who promote anarchy.

    Parent

    Don't corporations pass (none / 0) (#3)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 11:28:57 AM EST
    on any cost of taxes to their customers?  

    Lets see how well (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by jondee on Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 01:05:49 PM EST
    they pass on costs after their charters are revoked.

    And lets see how much they value the perks that come along with U.S citizenship when their offshore tax shelters are closed off.

    That's an American social experiment I could get behind.

    Parent

    Why would you want (none / 0) (#13)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 02:16:33 PM EST
    revoke charters of corporations?  

    Parent
    Why do we have any laws (none / 0) (#14)
    by jondee on Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 02:28:23 PM EST
    at all?

    After in-depth review it is determined that a corporations actions are detrimental to a majority of the citizenry's life-liberty-and-pursuit-of-happiness it's ability to continue to operate should be curtailed.

    They're not all too-big-to-fail sacred bulls from the temple of Shiva.

    Parent

    If, after in-depth review.. (none / 0) (#15)
    by jondee on Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 02:29:59 PM EST
    Who will determine that? (none / 0) (#20)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 04:18:51 PM EST
    Chavez?

    Parent
    Who enforces the other laws (none / 0) (#22)
    by jondee on Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 04:31:35 PM EST
    Chavez?

    Parent
    I forgot the rule (none / 0) (#23)
    by jondee on Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 04:33:46 PM EST
    a dang "commonist" is anybody who does anything right wingers dont like.

    Parent
    Speaking of which (none / 0) (#26)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 05:55:25 PM EST
    Really Wile (none / 0) (#28)
    by jondee on Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 09:45:50 PM EST
    you should thank Chavez. What would you guys have done for the last fifty years if you didnt have some socialist five thousand miles away to give you the heebie jeebies?

    Parent
    Depends on the tax (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by cal1942 on Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 01:44:28 PM EST
    If its local property tax of course its passed on to the customer in the form of the cost of production.

    If its a tax on profits then no, the cost isn't passed on to customers.  

    Parent

    They can try (none / 0) (#18)
    by ruffian on Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 03:02:04 PM EST
    if they really think raising prices in this sluggish-demand economy is going to help their bottom line.

    Parent
    I would guess they (none / 0) (#21)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 04:19:48 PM EST
    will not expand, cut back and layoff.

    Parent
    That would depend largely (none / 0) (#27)
    by cawaltz on Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 08:25:23 PM EST
    on whether or not they could realistically afford to lay off or cut back. Most employers don't keep employees around out of the goodness of their hearts. They do so to keep up with demand and to maximize profits. You'd figure that the right would have figured that out after they found out during the Clinton years that the sky doesn't actually fall when you raise the floor on wages.

    Parent
    Define wealthy (none / 0) (#7)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 01:39:20 PM EST


    In the context of what the average (none / 0) (#10)
    by jondee on Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 01:52:49 PM EST
    American subsists on, or what the rest of the world, ie "global market" subsists on?

    Parent
    Average (none / 0) (#12)
    by jbindc on Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 02:09:26 PM EST
    American household income is just over $50,000.  Seems like a good starting point for the discussion.

    Parent
    Chait is full of it (none / 0) (#16)
    by pluege on Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 02:46:33 PM EST
    Republican Party has embraced, with the fervor of religion, the conviction that that tax rates need only be high enough to fund their desired level of government spending

    This is so far off its ridiculous. republicans continually drive the government into ever deeper on purpose to deprive the government of the ability to spend money on helping people. AND, there is NO connection in that vast malady of the republican mind between taxation and spending on their priorities. They spend on their priorities - war, militarism, privatization of government services with NO regard for their cost.

    republicans since reagan could not have been clearer on this. Their goal is ever higher dept to prevent spending on people. And obama has willingly and knowingly walked right into the republican fiscal BS.

    i've been making this argument for years: (none / 0) (#24)
    by cpinva on Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 05:13:54 PM EST
    Since the primary function of government is to enforce the social contract, and since the wealthy are the biggest beneficiaries of our social contract, they should pay more for government.

    it's only fair that he who benefits the most, should pay the most. really, isn't that a republican core belief? no, of course it isn't, because, by definition, republicans are hypocrites. they can't help it really, it's genetic.

    democrats, on the other hand, seem to be genetically programmed to be wusses; always worried that the "popular kids" (read: republicans and the village people) won't like them. this is the entire predicate for obama's whole "post-partisan" schtick.

    what the democratic party could use is a combination of FDR/LBJ/HST: none of them was perfect, but combine the best of all them, and the republicans will be collectively wetting their pants in fear.

    sadly, obama projects none of their strengths.

    Actually (none / 0) (#25)
    by cal1942 on Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 05:51:28 PM EST
    Each one of them, FDR, LBJ, HST were each capable on their own of making the GOPers wet and soil themselves.

    Parent
    The last two could've (none / 0) (#29)
    by jondee on Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 10:18:15 PM EST
    done even better, if they hadnt also been committed to making the whole country wet and soil itself over the domino theory. How many resources, starting with Truman's midwifing of the national security state, were wasted on tilting at that windmill?

    Im not quite ready to start idealizing those guys just yet.

    Parent

    Not idealizing (none / 0) (#30)
    by cal1942 on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 10:01:40 AM EST
    My comment was only about the ability to stuff the opposition's nose in it.

    IMO the cold war was our doing.  Containment, as practiced, was the concensus in the foreign policy community.  It can be said that during that era our differences ended at the shoreline.

    Lives lost: In the millions
    Treasure squandered: In the trillions

    It really hasn't ended.  We still aggressively seek out enemies.

    Parent