Social Contract For Real Americans
Posted on 09/23/2011 8:44:44 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
This week President Obama said the obvious: that wealthy Americans, many of whom pay remarkably little in taxes, should bear part of the cost of reducing the long-run budget deficit. And Republicans like Representative Paul Ryan responded with shrieks of “class warfare.”
It was, of course, nothing of the sort. On the contrary, it’s people like Mr. Ryan, who want to exempt the very rich from bearing any of the burden of making our finances sustainable, who are waging class war.
As background, it helps to know what has been happening to incomes over the past three decades. Detailed estimates from the Congressional Budget Office — which only go up to 2005, but the basic picture surely hasn’t changed — show that between 1979 and 2005 the inflation-adjusted income of families in the middle of the income distribution rose 21 percent. That’s growth, but it’s slow, especially compared with 100% rise in median income over a generation after World War II.
Meanwhile, over the same period, the income of the very rich, the top 100th of 1% of the income distribution, rose by 480%. No, that isn’t a misprint. In 2005 dollars, the average annual income of that group rose from $4.2 million to $24.3 million.
So do the wealthy look to you like the victims of class warfare?
To be fair, there is argument about the extent to which government policy was responsible for the spectacular disparity in income growth. What we know for sure, however, is that policy has consistently tilted to the advantage of the wealthy as opposed to the middle class.
Some of the most important aspects of that tilt involved such things as the sustained attack on organized labor and financial deregulation, which created huge fortunes even as it paved the way for economic disaster.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
I find that the cat in heat on the fence outside my window usually makes more sense that Krugman. What a loser.
Good grief. Ryan has never said the rich shouldn't pay any taxes. The author of this piece of drivel is quite the liar.
I don’t remember signing any social contract. An unsigned contract is worth about as much a a Krugman opinion, which is to say squat.
I don’t remember signing any social contract. An unsigned contract is worth about as much a a Krugman opinion, which is to say squat.
I’m sorry, but where can I pick up my copy of the Social Contract to read and sign?
I don’t sign anything until my lawyer looks at it.
I don’t think Krugman is accusing Paul Ryan of saying the rich should not pay any taxes either.
Krugman wants the rich to PAY MORE TAXES. What he hasn’t proven is how doing so makes our finances sustainable ( as he argues ).
If you increase their taxes, all they do is find ways to hide their wealth, exploit loopholes, play a cat and mouse game with the IRS, and make the cash they have LESS PRODUCTIVE.
What’s the point of doing all these?
Of course, nothing in Krugman’s rant mentions the HUGE ELEPHANT in the room -— MONSTROUS SPENDING. If government is spending $1.4 Trillion more a year than it takes in in revenue the fault should lie with government, not the rich.
But hey, if you read Krugman’s other articles, he complains that GOVERNMENT IS NOT SPENDING ENOUGH !!!!!
Someone should clearly explain to me how this guy won a Nobel Prize in Economics because I don’t understand how he would deserve it.
The social contract is simple a euphamism for theft. It translates as some of the people agreeing to make property out of the rest.
I never agreed to any social contract and you can be certain that I will never be a party to any contract that Krugmn has signed
BTW, according to Prof. Walter Williams...
http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2011/04/13/eat_the_rich/page/full/
____________________________________________________________________________
This year, Congress will spend $3.7 trillion dollars. That turns out to be about $10 billion per day. Can we prey upon the rich to cough up the money? According to IRS statistics, roughly 2 percent of U.S. households have an income of $250,000 and above. By the way, $250,000 per year hardly qualifies one as being rich. It’s not even yacht and Learjet money. All told, households earning $250,000 and above account for 25 percent, or $1.97 trillion, of the nearly $8 trillion of total household income. If Congress imposed a 100 percent tax, taking all earnings above $250,000 per year, it would yield the princely sum of $1.4 trillion. That would keep the government running for 141 days, but there’s a problem because there are 224 more days left in the year.
How about corporate profits to fill the gap? Fortune 500 companies earn nearly $400 billion in profits. Since leftists think profits are little less than theft and greed, Congress might confiscate these ill-gotten gains so that they can be returned to their rightful owners. Taking corporate profits would keep the government running for another 40 days, but that along with confiscating all income above $250,000 would only get us to the end of June. Congress must search elsewhere.
According to Forbes 400, America has 400 billionaires with a combined net worth of $1.3 trillion. Congress could confiscate their stocks and bonds, and force them to sell their businesses, yachts, airplanes, mansions and jewelry. The problem is that after fleecing the rich of their income and net worth, and the Fortune 500 corporations of their profits, it would only get us to mid-August. The fact of the matter is there are not enough rich people to come anywhere close to satisfying Congress’ voracious spending appetite. They’re going to have to go after the non-rich.
But let’s stick with the rich and ask a few questions. Politicians, news media people and leftists in general entertain what economists call a zero elasticity view of the world. That’s just fancy economic jargon for a view that government can impose a tax and people will behave after the tax just as they behaved before the tax, and the only change is more government revenue. One example of that vision, at the state and local levels of government, is the disappointing results of confiscatory tobacco taxes. Confiscatory tobacco taxes have often led to less state and local revenue because those taxes encouraged smuggling.
Similarly, when government taxes profits, corporations report fewer profits and greater costs. When individuals face higher income taxes, they report less income, buy tax shelters and hide their money. It’s not just rich people who try to avoid taxes, but all of us — liberals, conservatives and libertarians.
What’s the evidence? Federal tax collections have been between 15 and 20 percent of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product every year since 1960. However, between 1960 and today, the top marginal tax rate has varied between 91 percent and 35 percent. That means whether taxes are high or low, people make adjustments in their economic behavior so as to keep the government tax take at 15 to 20 percent of the GDP. Differences in tax rates have a far greater impact on economic growth than federal revenues.
So far as Congress’ ability to prey on the rich, we must keep in mind that rich people didn’t become rich by being stupid.
Who signed this “social contract”, and was it properly witnessed and notarized?
Personally, I have never seen a “social contract”.
Of course, maybe “social contract” is just liberalspeak for communism. That’s what it sounds like.
Give me a rich man anyday over some fat, stupid, useless, welfare dependent loser. What the $%^#&# did they ever do to deserve the freebies they so ungraciously take from the makers in this society.
If it was up to me I’d round ‘em up daily by bus and put them to work sweeping the streets, picking up garbage, whatever.
One of the problems with using these broad statisitics is that they miss key specifics.
If you follow nthe Forbes 400 what you will see is that each year a number of those listed fall off the list and new people are addded. This indicates a dynamic economy. So the claim tht the life of the poor have become poorer(and the rich richer)fails to reflect the fact that people are constantly moving from rich to poor and poor to rich.
One of the problems with using these broad statisitics is that they miss key specifics.
If you follow nthe Forbes 400 what you will see is that each year a number of those listed fall off the list and new people are addded. This indicates a dynamic economy. So the claim tht the life of the poor have become poorer(and the rich richer)fails to reflect the fact that people are constantly moving from rich to poor and poor to rich.
One of the problems with using these broad statisitics is that they miss key specifics.
If you follow nthe Forbes 400 what you will see is that each year a number of those listed fall off the list and new people are addded. This indicates a dynamic economy. So the claim tht the life of the poor have become poorer(and the rich richer)fails to reflect the fact that people are constantly moving from rich to poor and poor to rich.
Social Contract For Real Americans
First Warren, now Krugman. “Social Contract” must be a focus-group tested and approved buzzphrase. Look to be smacked over the head with it every day for 13 months.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
