Contributors

Tuesday, March 08, 2011

Tell The Truth and Run

Things seem to be getting more interesting and stranger by the minute in Wisconsin. Meetings at the state line...a few GOP Senators starting to question supporting the bill....a pregnant Democrat who might give birth sometime soon...

So, while we watch this all unfold, let's take a step back and take a look at the 20 lies Scott Walker has been peddling over the last few weeks (courtesy of Russ Filtered News). These are some of the same lies we have seen in comments as well so it's nice to be able to finally dispense with them.

Walker: His bill is about fixing a budget crisis.

The truth: Even Fox News’ Shepherd Smith couldn’t swallow that one, declaring that it’s all about politics and union busting, and “to pretend that this is about a fiscal crisis in the state of Wisconsin is malarkey.”

Walker: says he campaigned on his budget repair plan, including curtailing collective bargaining.

“We introduced a measure last week, a measure I ran on during the campaign, a measure I talked about in November during the transition, a measure I talked about in December when we fought off the employee contracts, an idea I talked about in the inauguration, an idea I talked about in the state of the state. If anyone doesn’t know what’s coming, they’ve been asleep for the past two years.”

The truth: Walker, who offered many specific proposals during the campaign, did not go public with even the sketchiest outline of his far-reaching plans to kill collective bargaining rights. He could not point to any statements where he did. In fact, he was caught on tape boasting to what he thought was his billionaire backer that he had “dropped the bomb.”

Walker: keeps saying that “almost all” of the protesters at the Capitol are from outside the state

The truth: “The vast majority of people protesting are from here — Wisconsin and even more from Dane County,” said Joel DeSpain, public information officer for the Madison Police Department.

Walker: He wants to negotiate.

The truth: He won’t negotiate, but he’ll pretend to so he can trick the 14 Dem senators into allowing a vote on his bill. Walker recently offered to actually sit down and speak with the minority leader – something he should have done anyway and long ago – but only if the rest of the senators came back with him. Why?


“…legally, we believe, once they’ve gone into session, they don’t physically have to be there. If they’re actually in session for that day and they take a recess, the 19 Senate Republicans could then go into action and they’d have a quorum because they started out that way…But that would be the only, if you heard that I was going to talk to them, that would be the only reason why. We’d only do it if they came back to the capital with all 14 of them. And my sense is, hell, I’ll talk to them. If they want to yell at me for an hour, you know, I’m used to that, I can deal with that. But I’m not negotiating.”

Walker: says his budget-repair bill would leave collective bargaining “fully intact”

The truth: Walker revealed his own lie in the same radio interview when he said it was necessary to use his bill to strip collective bargaining rights, and in his own Feb. 11, 2011 letter to employees about his plan cited “various changes to limit collective bargaining” to the rate of base pay.

Walker: claims that states without collective bargaining having fared better in the current bad economy.

The truth: According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, three of the 13 non-collective bargaining states are among the 11 states facing budget shortfalls at or above 20% (Texas, Louisiana, North Carolina). Another, South Carolina, comes in at a sizable 17.4%. Nevada, where state employees have no collective bargaining rights (but local employees do) has the largest percentage shortfall in the country, at 45.2%. All in all, eight non-collective-bargaining states face larger budget shortfalls than Wisconsin.

Walker: Public employees are more richly compensated than their public sector counterparts.

The truth: According to the Economic Policy Institute, wages and salaries of state and local employees are lower than those for private sector employees with comparable earnings determinants such as education and work experience. State workers typically are under-compensated by 8.2% in Wisconsin.

Walker: said we needed a “repair” bill to address a payment owed to Minnesota of nearly $60 million and money owed to the Patient’s Compensation Fund in the tune of $200-plus million.

The truth: Walker’s budget repair bill addresses neither issue.

Walker: said that our budget problems are largely due to employee wages.

The truth: Total salaries and compensation in the last budget were 8.5% of the entire state budget.

Walker: “The alternative” to higher state worker pension and health care payments “is to look at 1,500 layoffs of state employees or close to 200,000 children who would be bumped off Medicaid-related programs.”

The truth: Federal law prevents Walker from taking away the health care coverage of 200,000 low-income and disabled children. Later, Walker told a Madison radio station that the layoff was merely a ploy to gain some political leverage: “I needed to get their attention to show how serious we were about having a balanced budget,” Walker said on the “Sly in the Morning” show on WTDY radio.

Walker: “We’ve seen local union after local union rush to their school boards, their city councils, their technical school boards and rush through contracts in the past two weeks that had no contributions to the pension and no contribution to health care. And, in fact, in one case in Janesville, they actually were pushing through a pay increase. Actions do speak louder than words.”

The truth: Of the 11 such contracts provided as examples by Walker’s staff, all 11 include some employee contributions to health insurance. PolitiFact Wisconsin, which too frequently gets the facts wrong and arrives at strained conclusions, did, at least, contact the 11 communities:

Madison: Unions in the state’s second biggest city have been negotiating contracts for more than a year. Their pacts expired at the beginning of 2010. Contracts with two of Madison’s biggest public unions settled before Walker was inaugurated Jan. 3, 2011, said Brad Wirtz, Madison human resources director. He said who said those deals set the template for the remaining unions, who reached agreement on wages and other key financial issues after Walker took office but before Feb. 11, when Walker announced his plan.


Sheboygan County: Adam Payne, the county’s administrator, said the county’s agreement with the unions was reached between negotiators before Feb. 11 and it mirrors pacts reached with other unions late last year. “There was no special treatment,” Payne said noting the County Board approved the contract at a regularly scheduled meeting.


Janesville: The tentative agreement for school custodians was reached Jan. 25, 2011 — before Walker’s proposals were made public. Eric Levitt, city manager, said that in January he had set a mid-February target to settle contracts with city workers, so the talks continued on the previously set timetable. The two sides were close to reaching tentative agreements prior to Walker’s Feb. 11 announcement, Levitt said. He said the city felt that because of its obligation to negotiate in good faith, it was necessary to continue the talks after the governor made his call for increased payments by employees.


LaCrosse County Administrator Steve O’Malley said the county didn’t rush things since negotiations started last year and the first tentative agreement with a local was reached in December.


Racine City Administrator Thomas Friedel that Racine had been negotiating with bargaining units representing Department of Public Works and clerical workers since summer of 2010 and reached tentative agreements well before Walker made his move.


Milwaukee Area Technical College: Like all of the other governments, the technical college and the union representing teachers and other workers had been talking for months, well before Walker was elected. The board and the American Federation of Teachers Local 212 reached tentative agreement on Feb. 10 — the day before Walker’s announcement. The agreement froze wages for two years.

Walker: “I don’t have anything to negotiate. We are broke in this state. We have been broke for years.” and “We’re broke. We don’t have any more money.”

The truth: The NY Times says “It’s all obfuscating nonsense, of course, a scare tactic employed for political ends.” Even the hyper-conservative Wall Street Journal calls out Walker on this lie. The notion that the state needs to refinance the debt because it’s broke and can’t make its debt payments is “completely wrong,” said Frank Hoadley, the state finance director. Joshua Zeitz, municipal finance analyst for MF Global, said, the shortfall — about 0.5% of the state’s overall budget — is a fairly inconsequential amount. “It’s becoming increasingly clear that this is a question more of politics than it is of a budget crisis,” Zeitz added. ”There’s a good amount of political theater in what you’re seeing,” said Tom Kozlik, municipal credit analyst at Janney Montgomery Scott.

If Walker were truly serious about balancing the budget, he would not be proposing a $36 million cut in the state’s capital gains tax or a $46 million corporate tax cut, on top of the millions of dollars in tax cuts he and the Republican legislature have already approved. Walker could balance his current budget by ending a variety of special interest tax dodging that is occurring in his state.

Walker: state employees pay next to nothing for their pensions and that it is all a big taxpayer give-away

The truth: Forbes — yes, the conservative Forbes! — says Walker is lying:


If the Wisconsin governor and state legislature were to be honest, they would correctly frame this issue. They are not, in fact, asking state employees to make a larger contribution to their pension and benefits programs as that would not be possible — the employees are already paying 100% of the contributions.


What they are actually asking is that the employees take a pay cut.


Pulitzer Prize winning tax reporter, David Cay Johnston, said so, too, at tax.com

Walker: said his budget repair bill, which guts the right of most public employees across the state to engage in collective bargaining, will deliver “the tools” local governments and school districts need to balance their budgets. “We cannot put this burden on local governments.”

The truth: Walker is going to both slash state aids and block local governments and school boards from raising taxes. And, of course, Walker’s numbers don’t match anything like reality.

Walker: claims he’s supported by silent majority.

The truth: Majority of Wisconsin residents (nearly 6 in 10) — and a majority of Americans — oppose his attack on collective bargaining and support the Dem 14 blocking it. Gallup found it. The CBS/NY Times poll found it. NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found it, too. The polls are so strong, even the reliably Republican Rasmussen couldn’t spin away from it. The public also overwhelmingly rejects the whole “public employees vs taxpayers” canard.

Walker: He wants to avoid layoffs.

The truth: Layoffs are implicit in his budget. Walker’s budget eliminates 21,325 state jobs

Walker: “To protect our schools, to protect our local governments, we need to give them the tools they’ve been asking for, not just for years but for decades.”

The truth: All four major state associations representing schools and local governments (not their employees) say this isn’t true.

Walker: The Dem 14 who are in Illinois to deny a Senate quorum needed to pass Walker’s budget repair bill are to blame for the layoffs he says he’s about to make to state workers.

The truth: Walker spoke of using layoff threats as political leverage: “We might ratchet that up a little bit, you know.” in his phony phone call with the faux Koch brother. Also, as noted above, Walker’s budget eliminates 21,325 state jobs.

Walker: “I have great respect for those who have chosen a career in government. I really do.”

The truth: Comedian Jon Stewart noted: ”‘I really do’ is a dead giveaway for ‘I really don’t,’ That’s what’s known in the business as the convincing clause. ‘I love you. I really do. That’s why breaking up with you right now is so difficult.’” The contempt he has displayed — in his bill, in his refusal to negotiate with the unions, in his refusal to negotiate with the Democrats and in his phony phone call — reveals why he felt the need for a convincing clause.

Walker admin: The protesters did $7.5 million of damage to the Capitol building by putting signs on marble walls with tape.

The truth: No professional estimate for clean-up has been performed. The Walker-appointed state facilities administrator would not support that estimate and said he’s not seen any damage by the protesters.

36 comments:

juris imprudent said...

According to the Economic Policy Institute, wages and salaries of state and local employees are lower than those for private sector employees with comparable earnings determinants such as education and work experience.

Funny, that isn't the case according to the U.S. Dept of Labor (no link, do your own homework).

So, let's do a classic Markadelphia-ism and debate who/what the Economic Policy Institute is? From the EPI website they describe themselves thus: Our mission is to achieve shared prosperity by raising the economic status of low- and middle-income Americans. To this end, we work to reshape the way policy makers think about the economy to persuade them to adopt policies that are good for working Americans. According to their annual report, there donors include: AFL-CIO, AFT, NEA, AFSCME, UAW and the Teamsters (among many others). So of course that means there is no bias in what they have to say, none at all.

So according to one liar and one biased source, public employees are all underpaid in comparison to their well-paid counterparts in private industry.

juris imprudent said...

Speaking of liars: how about the candidate who promised that science would not be politicized? The same candidate that promised that medical marijuana dispensaries in states that legalized it would be left alone?

Yeah, that's the one.

Funny thing, but you could find plenty of people to criticize Bush over at TSM - want to bet any liberal/leftie around here will agree that Obama is a fucking bum on this?

last in line said...

Chicagos new mayor, your Democrat buddy Rahm, is talking about reducing “outdated and duplicative work processes to focus on front-line service delivery.” Translate that out of bureaucratic newspeak and it means getting more work done with fewer people (in other words – layoffs). Emanuel says that the city’s generous pensions need to be preserved, but may also have to be, ahem, renegotiated. Strip away the fluff and the rhetoric and it looks as though Chicago’s new mayor plans to balance the city budget primarily through layoffs and cutbacks. Here’s a link, since all knowledge is only available on the internet...

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2053213,00.html

How about the democrat governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo...what’s been going on with him lately? He is seeking major concessions and threatening layoffs against public sector unions. Up to 9800 face layoffs under his new budget. That’s more than 6 times the number of workers Walker in Wisconsin is talking about these days. Some folks don’t like the cuts...

http://online.wsj.com/article/AP4903cba55a984c04b5a19117ae922ec6.html

Let’s move up to Providence, Rhode Island for a moment...

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/teachers/providences-gambit-all-teacher.html

The providence school board is notifying every single public school teacher in the city that they may be laid off? Jumpin Jehosaphat!

How about Vermont...
http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive/0211/Vermont_gov_I_can_see_NH_from_my_house.html

“We’ve already got a progressive income tax in Vermont, and we can’t get more progressive because we’ll lose the few payers that we have,” Shumlin said in between sessions at the National Governors Association meeting. “We don’t have any more tax capacity.”

These folks I just mentioned are slashing budgets, freezing taxes, cutting pay, chopping pensions and reducing their workforces because they have no choice. The old way of running government just doesn’t work. They can’t raise taxes any higher and they can’t borrow more money from increasingly skittish bond markets. Look at where I’m talking about - New York, Vermont and Chicago, where getting attacked by Republicans and the Tea Party makes your poll numbers go up. These are places where Democrats light candles in church in hopes that Ron Paul, Glenn Beck, Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin will come to their district to campaign against them.

The more government you want, the more ruthlessly efficient you have to make it. As long as voters, bond buyers and Uncle Sam were willing to pick up the tab and put up with inefficiencies, government worker unions lived in a time warp. The pressures that were reshaping the rest of society and breaking up the old labor system in the private sector simply didn’t apply. Now they do.

Keep going with the narrative though, it’s all Scott Walker.

As was said by Markadelphia in his entry called No Monopoly, "Liberals cheer diversity as well as organic and ever changing ideas."? YEAH RIGHT!

sw said...

good post last in line. looks like the liberals are the ones screamin to keep things the way they are and aren't willing to think about an ever changing idea when it comes to THEIR money and political contributions.

Mark Ward said...

"because they have no choice."

Completely wrong. Even the WSJ backs me up on this one.

Can't raise taxes any higher? What the fuck are you talking about? They're lower now than they have been in years.

This pathological attack on government has gotten so far out of hand that I'm seriously wondering if you are able to distinguish reality from fiction anymore. Your dislike of Democrats (and in other cases here, hatred) is so fucking misplaced it's sad.

The Democrats are not your enemies. The people who bank roll the people you support are your enemies. Good Lord...

juris imprudent said...

This pathological attack on government

I'm for less govt than we have now, you are for more.

I know what the absolute limit in my direction is, what is yours?

They're lower now than they have been in years.

California doesn't have less revenue do to tax cuts - there haven't been any. How much higher should CA taxes go?

So tell us M are you on a defined contribution or defined benefit pension plan? What percent of your income do you have to put towards your health insurance? Perhaps you have an interest, a bias even, toward unlimited govt?

And Obama is still the bigger liar, so there!

rld said...

The democrat governor said they have no more tax capacity, and their neighboring states have lower tax rates and people are voting with their feet and he knows it. How dare the democrat governor of Vermont attack the government like that!

Anonymous said...

I think that the government should just take 100% of all money over 50k per year. It is BULLSHIT that you rich fatcats get to spend money on anything like your fancy yachts and third vacation homes. Mark is speaking TRUTH to power, and until you idiot slaves understand his brilliance, you will continue to be the TOOL of the fatcats.

Last in line said...

So is your solution to the budget situations that states as well as the federal government find themselves in is to raise taxes?

Is government really that holy to you?

I reposted what the democrat governot of Vermont said about his own state budget and that is akin to hatred and dislike of all democrats?

Mark Ward said...

I think that Bush tax cuts for the top bracket should expire after the extension sending them back to Clinton levels. Combined with this, I'd support a whole host of spending cuts including defense and social security. It's going to take both to get the debt under control.

But it's also going to take much more than that. Bottom line is that people in the financial sector have to cease their illegal activity. That means the government is going to have to prosecute and right now the holiness lies on the side of the private sector so I'm certain the task will be difficult.

Anonymous said...

Bush tax cuts, social security, defence and prosecuting wall street doesn't balance a state budget.

juris imprudent said...

I think that Bush tax cuts for the top bracket should expire after the extension sending them back to Clinton levels.

Which won't do a damn thing to help Wisconsin, Vermont or California, will it.

Even the federal budget can't be balanced on the basis of those tax rates. Consider that the rates for the rich have never been as high as in 1979, yet the share of income taxes paid by the rich is higher today then it was then. Your pathological hatred of people more successful than yourself will never yield the result you desire.

last in line said...

I am smart enough to figure out who my enemies are.

http://qctimes.com/news/local/article_71a70b86-48f3-11e0-8691-001cc4c03286.html

These stories are everywhere. I talked to my dad this morning and the Mercer County clerk was on TV down there recently and said they are broke. Their sheriffs will not be getting a paycheck. They literally have no money. Mercer county is where we did all of our hunting when I was growing up. I'm sure me repeating the fact that the Mercer county clerk put out there will equal a Pathological Attack On Government in your eyes.

Here's another link regarding a different subject -

http://www.liveinsurancenews.com/health-insurance-exchange-debate-over-agents-role/851996/

The new Healthcare exchange that will be set up under the new law could very well spell the end to insurance agents. People will no longer need individual agents, they'll just need to go to the local government exchange (which will no doubt be like going to your local DMV). My girlfriend is an insurance agent, knows medicare, long term care and life insurance up and down.

Your fight for the financial self interest of those close to you, I'll fight for the financial self interest of those close to me.

Times are changing and we live in a different generation now. Back when these pension programs were set up, the average retiree only lived 9 months after retirement. The structure of these plans that were generated decades ago combined with the economic realities we are living in today mean that the old way of doing things is not possible anymore.

Mark Ward said...

Juris and anon, the "budget crisis" in Wisconsin has been largely manufactured using shock doctrine tactics. Since you must have missed the point about this in the post, here it is again.

Walker: “I don’t have anything to negotiate. We are broke in this state. We have been broke for years.” and “We’re broke. We don’t have any more money.”

The truth: The NY Times says “It’s all obfuscating nonsense, of course, a scare tactic employed for political ends.” Even the hyper-conservative Wall Street Journal calls out Walker on this lie. The notion that the state needs to refinance the debt because it’s broke and can’t make its debt payments is “completely wrong,” said Frank Hoadley, the state finance director. Joshua Zeitz, municipal finance analyst for MF Global, said, the shortfall — about 0.5% of the state’s overall budget — is a fairly inconsequential amount. “It’s becoming increasingly clear that this is a question more of politics than it is of a budget crisis,” Zeitz added. ”There’s a good amount of political theater in what you’re seeing,” said Tom Kozlik, municipal credit analyst at Janney Montgomery Scott.

If Walker were truly serious about balancing the budget, he would not be proposing a $36 million cut in the state’s capital gains tax or a $46 million corporate tax cut, on top of the millions of dollars in tax cuts he and the Republican legislature have already approved. Walker could balance his current budget by ending a variety of special interest tax dodging that is occurring in his state.

This is all about a Bircher fantasy, not budget problems.

And, juris, you must have been smoking something last night. The income tax rate is lower than it has ever been for the upper bracket. Not that they are really paying that with cap gains sitting at 15 percent. Combine that with the fact that the top one percent control most of the wealth and your assertion makes no sense.

Last in line said...

Is Vermont manufactured too?

Illinois has $14 billion of dept. The new governor (a democrat) is going to borrow $9 billion to pay it off. May as well pay your visa with your mastercard. That'll get you out of debt!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37136518/ns/us_news-life/

I chose that story because it was created almost 1 year ago.

Here's more...

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2011/02/quinn-budget-spends-more-but-cuts-schools-health-care.html

Is this manufactured too?

It's happening everywhere.

last in line said...

The WSJ backs other people up as well today...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704823004576192483295290652.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop#articleTabs%3Darticle

"But before he offered those proposals, Democrats and unions had refused to support his plan that public workers pay more for their pensions and health care. Only later did they concede that these changes were reasonable and will spare thousands of public workers from layoffs."

"Unions can still bargain for wages"

Anonymous said...

about 0.5% of the state’s overall budget

Which is the shortfall of the debt payment not the debt itself. That's like saying you can't make your minimum monthly credit card payment. When you can't pay the minimum credit card payment you are in serious financial straights. If you are paying your minimum credit card payment you are paying massive amounts in interest and you are not fiscally responsible.

What's Wisconsin's debt to GDP ratio?


If Walker were truly serious about balancing the budget, he would not be proposing a $36 million cut in the state’s capital gains tax or a $46 million corporate tax cut,


We've went round and round about this with you. Just because you don't believe that cutting taxes will promote economic growth and result in increased actual tax revenues does not mean that that is not the end result.

You don't like his politics. I get that. You don't agree with his economic designs. I get that. But saying his tax cuts will result in lessened income, that Wisconsin can continue to borrow money till the cows come home without ill effect and that there is no need to control state expenditures is simply not going to be accepted as fact.

Mark Ward said...

We've went round and round about this with you

No. We went round and round because you have an anaphylactic reaction to taxes because you still are operating under the belief that supply side economics works. It doesn't. The numbers don't lie and look at how stratified our society is now as a result. I guess I'm going to have to haul out Manzi again...especially when juris gets back in here.

Reagan was right about one thing, however. You can run high deficits and still maintain power in the world. Or did you miss that part of how successful he was?

And please stop saying that the state is "spending" money when it comes the salaries of the public employees. Their pensions and health care are part of their compensation. They aren't bilking the taxpayers out of anything.

Anonymous said...

It's part of their compensation just like my employers contribution to my health insurance and my pension is part of my compensation.

That does nothing to say that my employer can't renegotiate the terms of that compensation.

And that does nothing to say that Wisc can't do the same thing.

As for stop saying that the state is "spending" money when it comes the salaries of the public employees

Where the fuck do you think that money comes from you ignorant boob? It comes from taxes, to the state and the state then has to fucking spend that money on it's expenses. One of which is it's employees.

So please stop saying that money paid from the state to it's employees is not spending.

Mark Ward said...

You act like the money is being wasted. Somewhere along the line "spending" has become "taxpayers being bilked." Yet another word hijacked by people that live in Hateville. Are saying that the money received by public employees is wasted? That the state gets nothing in return? I am seriously done with this psychosis about the government and spending. You folks are completely irrational about this. The narrative you are being fed is that public employees have ran up the credit card and need to be cut off. It's a complete lie being pushed by people that actually do want to bilk you out of your money. It's monumentally frustrating that you can't see this.

juris imprudent said...

There’s a good amount of political theater in what you’re seeing

And of course that is only permissible when engaged in by The Right People(tm).

And, juris, you must have been smoking something last night.

Even if I was stoned, which I wasn't, I would still be more coherent and logical than you. To wit...

The income tax rate is lower than it has ever been for the upper bracket. Not that they are really paying that with cap gains sitting at 15 percent.

WTF are you even trying to say - other than I really hate the rich and bitterly resent that they have shit I don't.

When the modern federal income tax was first established it imposed a 1-6% tax on income above $30K (which was a princely sum in 1913). So even today's capital gains tax, which you seem to believe is sinfully low, is over twice what the max rate was originally. None of which contradicts in the least my statement that the rich, even with these supposedly bargain-bin rates thanks to "W", are paying more today than in '79 (when rates were more in keeping with your desire to boil the rich in oil and eat their most tender bits).

Nor does any of that alter in the least that California has a chronic budget problem despite a highly progressive income tax (in fact that is an exacerbating factor) and that there were no Bush tax cuts in the state income tax.

Maybe you should share some of whatever it is you are smoking.

juris imprudent said...

Somewhere along the line "spending" has become "taxpayers being bilked." Yet another word hijacked by people that live in Hateville.

So that's were all of those people in your head live. I've often wondered.

I am seriously done with this psychosis about the government and spending.

Sure, you'd rather indulge your psychotic reaction to people making money.

You folks are completely irrational about this.

Pffffft. Hey, hey, don't bogart that man.

juris imprudent said...

Here is an interesting bit of information on the subject - max tax rates AND the percent of wealth controlled by the top 1%.

I have no idea how reliable this is, but it seems the top 1% have controlled between ~20-40% of total wealth for nearly a century.

Mark Ward said...

Ah, I did make a mistake up there. I should've said

The income tax rate is lower than it has ever been for the upper bracket compared to previous decades . I should've have been more specific in separating out various years beginning with 1913-1916. The current tax rate for the upper bracket sits at 35 percent. From 1917 to 1924, the upper brackets saw more than that, often double. From 1925-1931, they were at 25 percent or under. From 1932-1987, the fluctuated from 50 to as high as 90 percent. From 1988-92, the stayed under the 35 percent threshold. From 1993-2002, they were at 39 percent. And from 2002 to today, we sit at 35 percent.

So, in looking at these numbers, compared to other decades, are we really being taxed to death? No. That was my original intent...to look at the 35 percent rate (which they don't actually pay because of cap gains) and compare it the very high rates of 1932-1987. Again, my mistake for bad wording.

Sure, you'd rather indulge your psychotic reaction to people making money.

It's not people making money I have a problem with, juris. That is a completely inaccurate label. I have a problem with plutocracy as should you. You refuse to admit this is happening despite the evidence I have presented. Manzi agrees with me. From the article YOU sent me.

Perhaps the best illustration of these pressures — to innovate and deregulate without coming apart at the seams — is found in widening economic inequalities. It has often been noted that American society has become increasingly unequal in economic terms over the past 30 years. As Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke noted in a 2007 speech, "the share of income received by households in the top fifth of the income distribution, after taxes have been paid and government transfers have been received, rose from 42% in 1979 to 50% in 2004, while the share of income received by those in the bottom fifth of the distribution declined from 7% to 5%. The share of after-tax income garnered by the households in the top 1% of the income distribution increased from 8% in 1979 to 14% in 2004." A typical senior partner in a high-end ­investment-banking, corporate-law, or ­management-consulting firm can now expect to make upwards of $1 million per year. In the stratosphere of the economy, the increases in wealth have been mind-­boggling: Even after the recent market meltdowns, there are about 30 times as many American billionaires today as there were in 1982.

It's even worse today.

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/mar/10/michael-moore/michael-moore-says-400-americans-have-more-wealth-/

54.9 Trillion for everyone.
Poorest 60 percent-1.26 trillion
Forbes 400-1.37 trillion

Three economists -- Thomas Piketty of the Paris School of Economics, Emmanuel Saez of the University of California, Berkeley, and Daniel Mitchell of the libertarian Cato Institute -- agreed.

What goes through your head when you see statistics like this?

GuardDuck said...

What goes through your head when you see statistics like this?

That the more things change the more they remain the same. There will always be poor people, and there has always been rich people. Middle ages, classical Rome and Greece, Egypt, Mesopotamia, India and China.

Only the communists tried to create equality of outcome and they failed miserably because it just can't be done.

Anonymous said...

You are just trying to win the argument, GD. You can take your historical facts and shove them. The only reason socialism hasn't worked yet, is because really smart people haven't been in charge.

juris imprudent said...

That is a completely inaccurate label.

Much as you keep slapping me with being psychotically against govt. Either you can lay off, or you can expect more of the same: your choice.

What goes through your head when you see statistics like this?

It is an interesting bit of trivia, but that it doesn't mean much to me. I'm not really concerned if the rich get richer. Yes, relative to that the poor are "worse off", but the real question is, are the poor better off now than they used to be. If that is true, what is the argument about then?

You see, no rich person has ever fucked me over. Nor has this happened to anyone who ever reads this blog, since no one has ever given a real fucking example of it happening. All there is is a bunch of whinging and hand-waving from people with an enormous sense of envy. People who feel that if someone has more than them - it must be unfair; because they apparently believe they deserve shit they haven't earned. You want to run your idiot mouth about Randian power fantasies - well that is just so precious coming from someone with the moral maturity about wealth of a 3 year old.

The chart I linked to shows the percentage of wealth controlled by the top 1% varies, with no correlation to the max tax rate. So again, what is your big fucking problem here - other than psychotic hatred of people making money (and by extension having things you don't)?

Mark Ward said...

There will always be poor people, and there has always been rich people.

That's right. And I have no problem with that. It's the very nature of capitalism. But what we have now is so ridiculous that is has to change. In so many ways, I (along with my fellow Democrats) are trying to prevent a socialist revolution. Yet, you Guard Duck and others, seem hell bent on steering us into that direction with your support of a plutocracy.

Anonymous, socialism never works. I'm not saying that and never have. But welfare capitalism does work. Our country was at its strongest when those mechanisms were in a firmer position. This is where we get into the coddling of the psychosis, as I call it. Just because you are on the one yard line at the right end of the field doesn't make me, at the 35 on the left side of the field, a socialist. It makes YOU an extremist.

I'm not really concerned if the rich get richer.

Well, you should be. Our country's future depends on it. Most of our problems today are the direct result of the rich getting richer, as Manzi so aptly noted.

I couldn't read the chart...it kept loading and loading. I'll try again at some point. It's probably my computer which is an old piece of junk.

Anonymous said...

Well, not "Socialism". I'm just saying that we need to tax the rich at around 100%, and then redistribute that wealth to the impoverished underclass. Not Socialism, of course.

Get rid of the fatcats!

juris imprudent said...

It's the very nature of capitalism.

I would say it well predates capitalism.

But what we have now is so ridiculous that is has to change.

Because???

Well, you should be.

Because???

Most of our problems today...

Such as?

Seriously, can't you articulate the argument any better than that? You just expect me to buy the whole hog when you haven't even given me a bite of bacon?

This ain't evangelism - I'm not going to take it on faith.

Mark Ward said...

Anonymous, that's not what I am saying. I'd like to see the Bush tax cuts for the upper bracket expire. That would put the taxes at around 39 percent. I'd also like to see cap gains restructured so that's not an easy out. And I'd like the criminals who committed fraud in the financial sector to go to jail. None of those things are socialism.

Juris, I've given you example after example. I've even quoted articles that you sent me (Manzi). Either you are being willfully ignorant, are actually ignorant, live in a bubble, or are playing games with me. At this point, I'm inclined to believe it's some combination of all four.

Manzi again (why I do it, I don't know)

Rising inequality would have been easier to swallow had it been merely a statistical artifact of rapid growth in prosperity that substantially benefited the middle class and maintained social mobility. But this was not the case. Over the same period in which inequality has grown, wages have been stagnating for large swaths of the middle class, and income mobility has been declining.

So economic inequality is likely to cause problems with social ­cohesion — but far more important, it is a symptom of our deeper ­problem. As the unsustainable high tide of post-war American dominance has slowly ebbed, many — perhaps most — of our country's workers appear unable to compete internationally at the level required to maintain anything like their current standard of living. And a shrinking elite portion of the American population, itself a shrinking fraction of the world ­population, cannot indefinitely maintain our global position.

GuardDuck said...

So we are supposed to raise taxes on the economic investment portion of our shrinking elite in order to prop up the income mobility of workers who cannot compete internationally?

And you consider that a recipe for success?

We read the same words and come away with something completely different.

juris imprudent said...

I've given you example after example

Then point me back to one, or humor me and repeat it so that I understand. The fact is you are always short on facts and long on opinion/feeling. I understand you have opinions and feelings. If that's all you've got, then say so and I'll stop bugging you for something you don't have. It is pretty stupid to ask for evidence in a matter of faith. I keep assuming you aren't really arguing faith, but it sure seems I'm wrong in that.

So economic inequality is likely to cause problems with social ­cohesion

That happens to be a point I disagree with Manzi (and you) on. First off, neither you nor he define social cohesion let alone establish why it is so goddam important. And if I am better off today then I was a year ago, I am better off - regardless if my neighbors are even more better off. All of this shit only matters if you are so absorbed in your standing in the pack. Well if you are, too fucking bad for you. How brutally ironic that progressive values should be so rooted in such a regressive social view.

appear unable to compete internationally

Which has what to do with social cohesion OR income inequality? You see, this is a point where Manzi can't even seem to understand what he is talking about. I'll agree that there may be a problem here - but raising your income tax to pay for my incompetence does not seem to be much of a solution to either inequality or cohesion (let alone any sustained improvement in my actual condition).

juris imprudent said...

Let me pick two points of data from the chart. The chart really does show no correlation between tax rate and wealth.

Today (at least the most recent date on the chart), with a max income tax rate of 35%, the top 1% control 34.3% of total wealth. This you say is an intolerable condition.

In 1965 (near the end of your beloved Golden Age of "good capitalism") when the top tax rate was 70%, the top 1% controlled 34.4% of total wealth.

Now, this supports your and Manzi's contention - how?

[And please check the spam filter.]

Anonymous said...

Then explain to me Mr. Fatcat, why the top 50% of all 'earners' only pay 3% of the taxes.

juris imprudent said...

why the top 50% of all 'earners' only pay 3% of the taxes.

How am I supposed to explain something that isn't true? The top 10% pay 2/3rds of all income tax (at the federal level).