October in Northern Arizona

Article II, Section 8 U.S. Constitution

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare [emphasis mine] of the United States... "

The conservative, "narrow" constitutionalists of our day do not have a "lock" on the Constitution.  It was meant to be a living, growing document.  The provision for "general welfare" encompasses many things.   In other words, sometimes the government helps those less off to promote everyone's "general welfare."  Societal unrest destroys the general welfare.

It *IS* Fair to Tax the Rich More

First of all, is "fair" exactly the right lens to look through when discussing broad political policies?  It seems the right measure would be "what does the most good while doing the least harm for most people?"

Overall, the best coupling of economic-political systems seems to be democracy and capitalism with appropriate "safety valves" in place.

The "fairness" question has a lot to do with "safety valves" among other things.  Without some checks on rampant greed, government officials can just be "bought out", and you end up with an oligarchy,  rule by the wealthy, over time.

Another safety valve involves the stock market.  As I've said elsewhere in this blog, too low of taxes on the rich leaves too much money for stock market speculation at the top. The market crashes, and we ALL end up saddled with the increases to national debt that come with this.  This debt saddles our descendents, too.  Debt pay-off is a far higher percentage of middle class resources than upper class resources. 

After the first shock waves of the 2008 crash passed, the wealthy regained their wealth quickly. The middle class, which had already been struggling to maintain its place, keeps falling further behind. We really did bail out the rich more than the poor did.

Returning to the national debt:  if we don't pay it down, our country's ability to borrow money will be impacted negatively.  We will have to pay more interest to borrow money.  One prong in paying down the national debt involves raising taxes on the wealthy.  We could someday leave our children or grandchildren with the harsh austerity measures of Greece.  This would hit the middle harder than the wealthy at first, of course.  Over time, though, as the middle was squeezed more and could not be extended personal credit in the way it has been, they will not be able to support the wealthy through buying from the companies and corporations of the wealthy as much.  (I have also made this point elsewhere.)

The wealthy either outright own or own more stock in corporations that damage or negatively affect the environment.  Frequently, these companies/corporations would rather pay fines than fix the problems that hurt the environment or workers.  So we all get saddled with the eventual costs of clean-up or medical bills.  (The corporation may pay some costs in lost productivity.) While corporations pay part of the clean-up costs, we need an active Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to make this happen. This costs money.  As the wealthy are profiting more from corporations, it seems "fair" to make them pay a larger share in ensuring the negative impact is limited or addressed.

When poorer people don't have insurance, they use emergency rooms later into their illnesses.  Emergency rooms cannot turn people away.  The hospitals recoup their costs via charging everyone more.  That drives everyone's health insurance up more.  The costs for insurance are a far lower percentage of the wealthy's compensation packages than it is for the middle class.  (The poor figure in differently, due to subsidies.)

There are other ways that the health industry benefits the wealthy out of all of this.  Hospitals keep being allowed to merge, although it is not necessarily good for the public.  Hospitals frequently operate, technically, by non-profit rules that benefit their ability to rake in the money.  But being non-profits doesn't stop them from paying their boards and their managing staff (roughly the equivalents of "CEOs") enormous salaries.  Additionally, health insurance companies and their CEOs, which are for profit, rake in big $$$.

(As an aside, the German system does not allow insurance companies to make a profit from basic policies.  The companies make their profits from the high-end "designer" policies.  Maybe a thought for here?)

The argument comes up that the wealthy are "job creators."  Not so fast. When greed became fashionable in the 80s (a fashion that has not died), a lot of corporate muckety-mucks accelerated the pace of moving jobs overseas to cheaper labor.  There is nothing written into current federal tax-lowering schemes that makes the wealthy produce more high-paying jobs in exchange for lowered taxes.  Besides which, some of the wealthy inherited their wealth.  Others are CEOs, who managed to get themselves into a "sweet deal." And they don't always lead their companies to better earnings. Even when they don't, they get obnoxiously high salaries, or at least the "golden parachute" to just leave and let another CEO give it a try.  And they have no obligation to create more high-paying jobs here. Their only obligations are to helping the shareholders get higher returns on their stocks.

There are those entrepreneurs who have created companies and wealth in their own generation. But, generally, they relied on strength, talents and resources of others. And a lot of the people in this category are very generous and give away a lot of their earnings.

Another reason raising federal taxes on the wealthy is fairer than you think is that state and local taxes tend to even out the percentages everyone pays in taxes.  State taxes are less graduated (everyone pays "closer" to the same percentage) and sales taxes take a far higher percentage of your money, the less you earn (or take home in disability or retirement pay).

Wars and the costs of caring for Veterans are another reason to tax the rich more. We're given all sorts of "noble reasons" why we've gone to war. And sometimes those noble reasons are true, though sometimes there are reasons to be skeptical.  Either way, the wealthy benefit off of wars. They disproportionately own stocks in companies that make military supplies and equipment.  VP Cheney's Halliburton connections appear to have benefitted from the Iraq war. Yet, servicemembers come disproportionately out of lower classes.  And we all have to pay the high financial and social costs of injured Veterans.

Some states have tried ridiculous tax-lowering, as I've also mentioned elsewhere.  There have been some states that kept cutting to the point of ridiculous.  Kansans went out to warn other states trying these policies that Kansas has tried that the policies didn't work.  Some of these states did couple corporate tax cuts with the requirement to provide jobs with certain salary levels.  Others did not. Still, Kansas and Louisiana, as mentioned elsewhere, ran into serious problems.  It looks like Wisconsin is going that way; the programs are beginning to be very unpopular there.  It seems only a matter of time until Arizona learns the hard way. 

Another reason I don't like this is how much this line of thinking is bought out directly by the Koch Brothers.  When you trace all the ways they funnel money to candidates to promote this, it's scary.  I won't list them all here right  now.  But there are a couple points worth making.

As an aside, I will mention a couple of the glaring improprieties of how the Kochs are setting too much of the national agenda.  First of all, their constant interference makes democracy a farce.  Secondly, the Kochs aren't terribly honest.  They're very willing to "use" conservatives who are pro-life, while the Kochs are decidedly pro-choice.  At some point, when they've gotten their way on economic matters, will they buy out the public thinking on abortion?  (There are other social conservative preferences that are the opposite of what the Kochs want.  I will not discuss all that here.  Suffice it to say, it looks like they're using people.)

As mentioned in my post on libertarianism, the Kochs literally want -0- taxes. That's not realistic at all in a modern society.  (see that post for more details) 

The Kochs bring out a great deal of cynicism in me.  There are so many things deserving another post at another time on the Kochs' operations.  But that's not the main point of this post.  The reason they came up in this post is their constant pushing of the opposite of what would be helpful for the U.S. to move forward. And I wanted to point out that they buy politicians' intentions.  

I agree that there's a point at which taxes are too high on the wealthy.  I'm no "Bernie, Jr.", either.  (I think his use of "socialism" was misapplied.  And it risks letting people like me get labelled as "socialist", which I'm not.  The correct definition of socialism is, according to Merriam-Webster: "1) any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. 2) a system of society or group living in which there is no private property."  Even Bernie doesn't believe this.)  The "sweet spot" seems to be setting federal taxes on the wealthy somewhere between 40 to 45% and more fully graduating state taxes, to have more brackets.  (I realize I mentioned how having them less graduated equalizes things more, but they would still not likely end up fully graduated in most states.)

Think for yourself.  Don't follow straight ideologies.

Reason 1000 (on "Why We Need a New TR")

And, yes, this is a real quote.  I found it and made the meme.

In Business We Trust....

"Business ethics":  an oxymoron.

No Duh!

Well, this was a "No 'doo-doo', Sherlock" moment.  The street ends in a T-intersection, with a mountain looming behind.  Yet, the city apparently needed the "Dead End" sign!!!  😆😄😃

The Pitfalls of Libertarianism

(aka:  "The United States of Koch Brothers")

(1)  This has never been a Libertarian country.  No matter what libertarians try to say about the early days and the Founding Fathers, it never was.  

(2)  Even if it had a bit more of a Libertarian bent in the early decades, that would no longer work, practically, in today's society. Things have changed. At the time of our founding, we were much more rural.  And if people ran out of space or wanted second chances or wanted to try to "get ahead", they often moved further west, where they could homestead.  (I'm not going to argue the ethics here about whether they should have taken land from Native Americans.  I'm only presenting what happened.)

(3)  When we were more rural, there was less social unrest. And those who were still rural could insulate themselves from a lot of it.  Now that we're living on top of each other in cities and sizeable towns, we can't do that.  If only for self-interest, there has to be some sort of safety net.  The alternative is to spend a lot more on law enforcement and incarceration.

(This is not to argue to liberal opposite that we must try to equalize income.  That would be socialism.  Of course, there are leaders on the Right that want to talk about any increase on taxes on the 1% for the public good as "socialism."  I know this for a fact because I went to see my congressman, Representative Trent Franks, in person [knowing it was probably a lost cause but doing so, anyway] armed with facts, and he tried bringing up the "s" word.  I shot that down... there was a long time that the top earners paid higher taxes in the 20th Century. And they lived through it... quite well, in fact.)

(4)  The Koch Brothers, when you read their stuff thoroughly, would truly like to work their way down to a 0% tax rate.  Think about that, if it really happens.  No public roads, no public libraries, no student loans, no public education, no consistency from one state to another.  Talk about your roving hoards in that scenario...

(5)  Kansas was so bankrupt from trying the Koch Brothers-Laffer [see above post]-Grover Norquist-type supply-side tax reductions that some schools couldn't even finish the 2016/2017 school year.  Yeah, increasing an under-educated, under-paid portion of society is always a good thing.... especially now that we live on top of each other!

(6)  Maybe some of the uber-wealthy are planning to build compounds to protect themselves from the social unrest.  However, when there's less money from the middle class being spent on the stuff that rich people's corporations put out, it's going to hit them, too. Because all this WILL shrink the middle class, or at least its buying power.  See the many links to economics in this blog.

(7)  Read the new book The CEO Pay Machine:  How It Trashes America and How to Stop It, by Steven Clifford, himself a former CEO.  Trust me, just read it.

(8)  The Koch Brothers are really Libertarians, trying to worm their way into the GOP because Libertarianism never got anyone elected.  (In fact, one of them was once on the Libertarian ticket as a vice presidential candidate.)  They really aren't social conservative; they're just happy to use the social conservatives to get their way.  (They'll pose as Centrists when it works for them, because Libertarians tend to avoid the Culture Wars by expressing "live and let live" ideas.)

As Libertarians, they are pro-choice.  (Or as many social conservatives would phrase it, they're "pro-abortion.")  In my more cynical moments, I wonder if their grand scheme is to offer, and even promote, abortion for the poorer in society so no one would have to pay for services for them.  (A return to Margaret Sanger's "eugenics"??)  

(9)  The Koch Brothers, who are late 70s (one pushing 80) will probably not be around to see all the havoc they've promoted, if their views hold sway.    But WE will all live with it.... including my son, whom I'm wondering if there will even be a decent student loan program for him to go to college on.

(10)  TEDDY ROOSEVELT STYLE REPUBLICANISM.  Balance between what business/labor/environmental concerns!!!!!  That should be more of a common goal as Americans.

Statues of Presidents, downtown Rapid City, SD, near Mount Rushmore