132 Comments
User's avatar
⭠ Return to thread
Ed Maguire's avatar

Columbia here - after some youthful confusion I will never vote Democrat again (not much of a fan of Republican either). Unfortunately the typical Ivy Plus tier students have been inculcated with a combination of self congratulatory arrogance and stunning ignorance as well. It would be nice to see more humility and grace from our "elites" but that requires a level of self awareness that's pretty rare.

Expand full comment
Tom Larson's avatar

Man! Did YOU ever "Peg it"! VAST majorities of "educated" people are FULLY unconscious of their INABILITIES, yet believe themselves to be quite the opposite. Stunning to witness with ever-opening, and aging eyes!

Expand full comment
angelO's avatar

The word is "smugnorant." "High on their own farts" works, too.

Expand full comment
trembo slice's avatar

South Park episode “Smug Alert” is a classic. Definitely worth watching if you’re unfamiliar.

Thaaaaannnkks!!!

Expand full comment
Chilblain Edward Olmos's avatar

Dunning-Krugerocracy.

Expand full comment
Anti-Hip's avatar

"VAST majorities of "educated" people are FULLY unconscious of their INABILITIES"

Agreed. The question in my mind is 'where did this come from?' It didn't exist to this degree in my youth and young adulthood decades ago; instead, noblesse oblige, though by no means universal, seemed to reign as a result of multi-generational, wisdom-born humility.

Expand full comment
Tom Larson's avatar

'Where?', indeed! The answer to that simple question is different for everyone and depends upon the depth and breadth of ones individual cosmology. From my perspective (a single point, looking out at the remainder of the universe), the short answer is that this is a fully natural process, that we can only partially understand. We see mankind make great strides, yet we see human frailties go the OPPOSITE way; from Gold, to Silver, to Iron (and 'through the ages' if you are a student of History). There's a much bigger story here, that has been going on for so long, that from an individual standpoint it is impossible to even BEGIN seeing, until one has established their own observations over an 'ever lengthening arc of time', and recognizable patterns in human behavior, THEN become noticeable to the individual. One thing is VERY interesting: The PEOPLE are the exact SAME as they have ever been. It is only their 'programming' that has changed.

In a world less fettered by the pursuit of material goals (self), there are fewer (selfish) distractions, MORE meaningful human interactions, SUBSTANTIALLY MORE introspective thought, and a much tighter social cohesion is the result. As the opportunity for (selfish) pursuits increases, TIME that would otherwise be spent on those virtuous 'PEOPLE' qualities, is DISPLACED by the pursuit of (selfish) 'THINGS'.

Here are four words: USE, LOVE, THINGS, PEOPLE. When the alignment is correct, life is harmonious. So back to your original (and hopefully NOT rhetorical) question of 'Where

did this come from?'. DECAY, as a result of MALIGNING those four simple words. It's NATURAL. It's happening as part of a larger saga that is so EXTENSIVE that it cannot possibly be understood in its entirety by a mere human being. And it is also meant to PROVE A POINT to mankind - that he is NOT GOD.

Expand full comment
Anti-Hip's avatar

If the decay is natural, where are the moments it has it occurred in U.S. history? Arguably, at the turnings, yes? If so, my follow-on question is then, at each of these turnings, who had then then, and is now taking, over from the decayed (weakened) citizenry? Power abhors a vacuum.

"a larger saga that is so EXTENSIVE that it cannot possibly be understood in its entirety by a mere human being. " -- Then of what use is asserting it? Humans, and groups of humans, can only understand human-understandable things. Everything else is conjecture.

Expand full comment
Tom Larson's avatar

I refer to 'Decay' in the context of human LEADERSHIP, and I speak of it in terms of a trend, and not specifically identifiable events. Would you agree that 'certain things' are getting worse? I believe this is because society as a whole has an ever decreasing ratio of 'righteous' to 'other than righteous' individuals. There is also another little observation I have made along my personal journey, and that is that 'leadership' DOES NOT CONQUER, it recruits VOLUNTEERS. Those who seek "The TRUTH" find it only when they have been exposed to it, and only when they VOLUNTEER to accept it. Leaders share truth in the hope that you will test what is revealed and find it to be true, whereas RULERS broadcast 'the truth' and EXPECT your acceptance and agreement. I posit that we WERE living in the age of LEADERS, but we are continually transitioning to an "age of RULERS". The "Leaders" of today are more akin to RULERS, but we cannot clearly see this because our frame of reference has been retarded by contemporary programming. We HAVE bad examples, and 'bad example' begets more 'BAD EXAMPLE'.

I could try to explain what I mean by "...a larger saga that is so EXTENSIVE that it cannot possibly be understood in its entirety by a mere human being. ", but I would likely fail to properly elucidate it. Suffice it to say that I am one who believes, that of all creatures, great and small, humankind is not unlike a singular organism living within a much larger body. The story is of THAT BODY, not humankind, although we do play a small role.

Expand full comment
Anti-Hip's avatar

"I refer to 'Decay' in the context of human LEADERSHIP"

That happens only while, or after, citizenship decays. If leadership is held accountable by the citizenry, it doesn't decay. If it is not held accountable, it becomes populated with opportunists who no longer work for the general welfare.

I think by "rulers" here you mean totalitarians or autocrats who ignore and/or fool the people. I think of "leaders" as anyone who has the nominal positions and power, whether by honest or dishonest means.

"[H]umankind is not unlike a singular organism living within a much larger body. The story is of THAT BODY"

If that's so, then neither you nor I can understand its motives, no matter what "it" "tells" us. So, I see little reason to discuss it.

Expand full comment
Ann22's avatar

Lowly State Universities here.

..”because Donald Trump didn’t. He just “gave [rural voters] a way to essentially give a big middle finger to Democrats, to people who live in cities and to the rest of the country.”

That resonates with me based on where I live in a very rural state. It’s just an anecdote but I see this not uncommonly. Two young men hunted with my husband recently. They are in their late 30s, own their own homes, drove up in new 80k pickups…and spent two days bemoaning how difficult and unfair life is for them. They both were public tech school educated men who had very good management positions in the tax payer subsidized oils fields kept open by non other than Biden. These men came from good working class homes where I know their parents would be shocked at how these two talked.

I left the Dems because they have forgotten the working class issues in many ways. I come from union mill workers. But the contempt and bitterness shown by some is just unfounded. And the GOP and Trump especially….offer what? There are a lot on the left who are far from elite class. I still think Dems put forth legislation that is more supportive of working class, esp in matters of taxation.

Expand full comment
Aaron S's avatar

Can you answer a question "esp in matters of taxation" that I have never really gotten a satisfactory answer to? I assume by that you mean you are in favor of government taxing the rich more. But all that does is take money from individuals and put it in the hand of the government to allocate, and government is famously bad at allocating money efficiently. So why, in your view, is it better for the government to tax and spend money than the people who originally generated/earned it?

This is a genuine question, and I know I assume a lot about your views. But you seem like a reasonable person who happens to think differently than I do, so I figured I'd give it a shot.

Expand full comment
Lawyers Guns & Money's avatar

Aaron, this is why the Taibbi comments section is more vibrant than the Bari Weiss (The Free Press) comments. You are sincerely asking a question to understand someone's perspective better. I wish this happened more often. I don't know if I can satisfactorily answer your questions, but I'll take a shot.

And I certainly don't speak for Ann, but I too was public university educated. I had a very successful career in large corporations, and made a lot of money, but never complained about my taxes. Because our taxes are pretty low, especially for rich people.

I'm glad you wrote "generated" in addition to "earned." My annual income when I retired was over $650,000 and I wasn't even a Senior VP, just a regular VP. A normal person can't spend that much in a year, which is why I was able to retire in my 50s. I certainly didn't "earn" that much, anymore than Tom Hanks "earns" $25 million plus a % on the back-end. To think I actually was worth that (i.e., earned it) would require me to think my job was 10 times more important or valuable to society than a firefighter, or a cop, or a teacher. And I'm not about to start thinking dumbass elite shit like that. Step 1 is rich people understanding that they don't really deserve all the money. So paying taxes isn't the same as giving away a child. Step 2 is rich people caring enough about our nation to want to contribute to reducing our debt. In other words, being willing to pay our share. Granted, steps 1 and 2 will be difficult. There are a lot of smug bros out there who think they earned and deserve every penny, and who likely think they are worth more to society than others. But there's always hope.

Very true, government spends very inefficiently and unproductively. Like a hundred billion for Ukraine and they need 60 more. And who even wants to think about what kind of deals Biden is cutting to get House support for his wars.

What we do NOT need is more tax cuts for rich people. As mentioned, our rates are already quite low compared to peer nations. And we sure as fuck don't need to be cutting taxes on corporations. Some rich people seem to try to spend all they can. The vast majority don't, and so tax cuts just sit in their investment accounts, doing nothing productive for the economy. At least government spends money in the economy.

As I noted up top, I don't know if that will be a complete enough answer for you. I believe in paying our fair share in taxes. Government has definitely broken our deal by not spending money fixing roads and bridges, etc., spending on wars and the security state in general instead.

Rich people complaining about taxes don't understand what truly high taxes are.

Some rich folks get it. Warren Buffet is famous for decrying the fact that he has a lower tax rate (due to capital gains and carried interest bullshit) than his secretary. There is a lot of that kind of nonsense in our tax code that could be cleaned up.

I'm also interested in a furtherance of your perspective.

Expand full comment
Aaron S's avatar

Thank you for taking the time to write a reply, and I agree that I really enjoy the chance to actually share views with others in a respectful way. I have a couple points I'd like to make in response (publicly educated myself, for what it's worth. Finance undergrad and MBA at a decent state school):

1. To your point about not deserving all the money, I would ask, if the people who work for and earn the money don't deserve it, then why does the government? If you want to use it to give to charity, or invest in a friend's business, or whatever, shouldn't you make that decision rather than giving more to the government to spend with abandon and give to their crony friends?

2. As to the rates we pay being lower than our peers, what about the fact that the top 1% of earners pay something like 40% of total income tax? I don't remember the exact percentage but it is a huge disparity.

However, none of this really gets to the core of my question, which is why you trust the government more than yourself to know how best to spend the money you earn. There are countless examples of misspending and graft by the federal, state, and local governments, and so much of current regulation seems designed to funnel much of government spending to various lawyers or NGOs for opinions on regulatory matters or environmental reviews. Higher taxation in effect just ends up letting the most wasteful and corrupt among us allocate a huge proportion of our national output.

Expand full comment
DarkSkyBest's avatar

I'm from Nebraska and respect WB. And the Buffet family has donated huge amounts of cash to worthy charities, and without a lot of recognition. But here's my question. Is there ANY federal governmental SPENDING that should not be cut back? Maybe WB has spoken to that, but I don't remember him saying the feds should spend less. What the federal gov't is spending is unverified and outrageous. The righteous billionaires preach, "We should be taxed more!" Do they ever say, the federal government is wasting money? Yeah, no.

Expand full comment
Lawyers Guns & Money's avatar

Good points. I think the Pentagon, simply by the size and lack of accountability, likely counts for a large share of profligate spending. It should be cut. More importantly, it needs to be audited. The fact that they say it's too complicated is a red herring. There are a lot of forensic accounting firms that are quite talented, and they'd probably appreciate a change of pace from doing research on stock options for divorce settlements.

I don't know what all the spending amounts are, though I'm sure they'd be fairly easy to find. On your question of what should not be cut back, I think first of Social Security and Medicare, which keep many millions of senior citizens out of outright poverty. Many would disagree with me on "entitlements" but people paid in all their careers, they should enjoy the limited benefits.

Expand full comment
Taras's avatar

Builttoill: Si vis pacem, para bellum — If you want peace, prepare for war. Which is to say, if you want war, cut defense. It’s like cutting smoke detectors and sprinkler systems or defunding police.

People were so, so surprised when Putin invaded Ukraine. It didn’t make any sense! Of course, in his aberrant worldview, it did.

On the other hand, I’m not sure why retirees with millions of dollars in assets are receiving full social security benefits.

Expand full comment
David S's avatar

Taras, This is an old trope. Why should millionaires get SS? 1. Because they paid into it just like someone of modest means. 2. If you "means test" SS it will be the death of the program and that's what the vultures on Wall Street want......your retirement accounts. Your sprinkler analogy, with all due respect is fallacious. The logic of this escapes me. Are you saying that if the batteries in your smoke detector fail and you forget to replace them, it increases your chance of having a fire? Of course not. There's another saying that I think makes more sense. You can't simultaneously prepare for war and expect peace", (maybe not the exact quote).

Expand full comment
Taras's avatar

David S — Obviously, strength deters attacks on your interests; weakness tells your enemies an attack is likely to succeed. We replaced a weak President with a strong one: the Soviet Union went from the height of its power to the brink of surrender. Decades later, we replaced a strong President with a weak one: Iran and Russia and, let’s not forget, the Taliban quickly took advantage. (Alternative explanation: coincidence, coincidence, coincidence, coincidence.)

Foregoing smoke detectors will mean that a small, nuisance fire (or smoldering electrical wiring) will be given time to grow into a big, fatal one.

If Social Security is going bankrupt, so it can’t keep all the promises made on its behalf, it would seem to make sense to concentrate its benefits on the people who actually need them.

BTW, the “vultures on Wall Street” have done a pretty good job with my retirement accounts, knock on wood.

Expand full comment
David S's avatar

I really admire the stories you tell yourself Tara. Unfortunately they are fantasies. I know my little post here will NEVER change your mind about the history of the late 20th and early 21st century. But it does amaze me how folks can convince themselves of a narrative that wraps their beliefs into a neat little package. The collapse of the former Soviet Union is complex and very little to do with who was or wasn't prez of the US. Regarding SS, the simple solution is to raise the maximum income range......as Ronald Reagan did!!!!!!! If your retirement is tied to Wall Street, good luck with that. You'd better have a big pile of wood to knock on for that one. 1987, 2008. It's coming again, soon.

Expand full comment
David S's avatar

And, BTW a smoldering electrical fire is usually inside a wall. Your smoke detectors won't pick that up. Another fantasy you hold onto that has no connection to reality. And what the heck is a "small nuisance fire"? Wouldn't you notice that even without a smoke detector???? I'm not saying you shouldn't have one. We have 4 of them. But that's not what's going to prevent a fire. Only get us out of the house before we die.

Expand full comment
Lawyers Guns & Money's avatar

Defense? When was the last time our military was used for defense? 1945.

If Joe Regular Guy gets Social Security because he paid in 6.6% of his $50,000 annual pay and a millionaire paid 6.6% of his pay (up to whatever the limit is these days), why should he not receive the benefits? Should they also be stripped of Medicare? If one has several million, one does not need medical insurance.

Expand full comment
Torpedo 8's avatar

Toto, we're no in 1945 any longer. Russia has more warheads than we do and China has a nice pile as well. What do you suggest? Cutting defense and start digging holes?

Please review Flemming v Nestor (1960). The SCOTUS ruled on a case where a foreign national commie was discovered working the steel mills in Cleveland. They were going to deport him when he said, "Hey, what about my Social Security?" Basically the court ruled that we (citizens) have no claim to SS and it could not be analogized to an annuity bottomed by our contributions. We only receive what the government decides we should receive, which allows them the flexibility to meet unforeseen circumstances (i.e. you have no accrued property right to your contributions). I'm surprised how many people don't know this.

Expand full comment
Megan Baker's avatar

The impetus for war comes not from any reality off our shores but from the bloodsucking arms industry and the payoff Nancy Pelosi, et al, get from their stock in it. Geopolitical circumstances are merely invoked--while being copiously lied about--to justify handing over the nation's treasure to the latter. (Cutting defense literally means also cutting vast amounts of graft, so the way to true preparedness is first and foremost through less corruption.) If you're unaware of the US and UK (USUK) scuttling peace in Ukraine right from the beginning, and how the US does this time after time the world over, then you're poorly-informed. But then, you talk about "commies," lol. The 1950s called. They want their foreign policy and witch hunts back.

Expand full comment
Lawyers Guns & Money's avatar

You're right, we're not in 1945. That was the last time we had justified military actions. Responsibility around offensive war got thrown out long ago.

How many warheads does a country need to deter war and invasion? Well, North Korea has effectively deterred us from coming in with our regime change shit. Why? How? They have nukes. Even if they are unreliable and we're not really sure of their range, they got 'em, and they're safe. This is why Pakistan wanted them when India had them. That is why Israel wanted them. That is why Iran still wants them.

We have plenty. Ain't no one attacking us. And we're not attacking anyone who has them.

And I'm not making a legal argument about Social Security, I'm making a simple "Do the Right Thing" argument.

Expand full comment
DarkSkyBest's avatar

Great comment.

After our pathetic Afghanistan withdrawal, orchestrated so Pres. Joey could give a speech on the anniversary of 9/11, AFTER he had commented that the US response would depend on how "minor" the Russian Ukraine invasion would be . . .

Years ago my grandma received a very meager SS income. As an unskilled widow, it was something to help her. Now Pres. Joey is forgiving student loans to people who get degrees, but can't afford paying back their contractual obligation. Maybe those soon to be college-educated didn't have to know anything about contractual obligations. Or what it means to sign your name.

I am all for raising the age of SS benefits AND basing benefits on income. The problem is, the federal government is now just the go-to for every group The Powers That Be want to subsidize. Did I read that the art gallery exhibiting Hunter's works of art got PPE funds, or whatever they are called. Because yeah, the gallery needed to be open with their 3/5/10? employees to keep Hunter art available to the world?

If Congress had any (ahem) gumption, they could cut every line item in half right now.

As a prosecutor who sat in daily court for many years, I cannot tell you the number of times defendants said their income was from social security ( addiction problems). Don't give people with addictions cash, give them meaningful help.

And as far as the tab now being run for the "newcomers" --- maybe these billionaires who want a fairer tax code can start a fund to pay for the newcomers and their progeny in perpetuity. But of course, it is ALL virtue signaling.

Expand full comment
Taras's avatar

DarkSkyBest: There used to be an itinerant handyman in my village in upstate NY, who liked to dress like John the Baptist (weather permitting) and bless people. He would do yard work all week, saving his money for a weekend bender. Then someone did a horrible thing: sign him up for Social Security disability. Now he could drink all week. He was so strong, it took him several years to drink himself to death.

Expand full comment
DarkSkyBest's avatar

It's not about problem solving or helping people. Or even understanding the other guy. It's about being in charge of EV RY THING.

Expand full comment
LiveFree66's avatar

You could tax the Billionaires for all of their wealth and we would still be tens of Trillions in the hole.

Expand full comment
Lawyers Guns & Money's avatar

But it would be fewer trillions over time. And we could actually tax huge corporations. Hey Apple, if you want to sell that phone in the USA, you'll pay taxes in the USA, not Ireland.

Expand full comment
Anti Fragile's avatar

No, that's not the way it works. If you confiscatorially tax the rich and the Apples, they will simply make sure to generate the income elsewhere. You'll collect a fair amount in the short run, but then you've killed the goose who lays the golden eggs.

Speaking of golden, this is an example of one of the golden rules of human economic behavior: You get less of that which you tax. Tax capital gains, you'll get less wealth creation. Tax income, people will be motivated to generate less of it in your jurisdiction. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have taxes, but a static analysis of how much we can collect if we only taxed the hell out of group X is always wrong. This is why raising tax rates often results in reduced tax collection, and cutting tax rates means more taxes collected. Ask the French or Gavin Newsom, to name two current examples, what happens when you try to soak the rich.

Expand full comment
Lawyers Guns & Money's avatar

Let us know when Tim Cook agrees to forfeit all US revenue. 35% of Apple's $383 Billion is generated in the US. I'm sure the shareholders wouldn't mind forfeiting $125+ BILLION in revenue, which with their margins is many, many tens of BILLIONS of forfeited profit. I'm not holding my breath.

What is this "confiscatorially" stuff. Is that even a word? I often see armed government agents taking rich people by force to go to the bank and confiscate money. Is that what you're referring to? Are you Grover Norquist with a nom de plume?

Blahblahblah if you tax, people won't create blahblahblah. Right. And next you'll tell us all about how the Laffer curve delivers those rich people tax cuts right down to the little people. I think it was George H. W. Bush (the smart one) who described this as "voodoo economics."

Tax rates were raised under Clinton. Revenues were at all-time highs, so I don't think everyone started working a 30-hour week in protest.

Expand full comment
Anti Fragile's avatar

I don't know what you are reacting to in your first, third, and fourth paragraphs, but it isn't what I said. I think you read things into my post that weren't really there. I didn't say anything about Apple paying zero taxes, the Laffer curve, the Clinton tax rate increases (which I wouldn't call anything near confiscatory), or that "people won't create". I did say that soaking the rich tends to backfire, and I stand by that claim. Regarding your second paragraph:

Sorry for using that word. It's what economists call taxes that attempt to take most, if not all, of an entity's income or wealth. I don't know of a different way to say it, so I used the word I know.

I was commenting on what to appeared to be your supporting the idea of "tax[ing] the Billionaires for all of their wealth". Yes, I would call that confiscation, and yes, if such a tax were passed I would also expect it to be enforced by "armed governments" (i.e. the police).

I don't know who Grover Norquist is.

Expand full comment
Ann22's avatar

If millionaires and billionaires simply paid what they legally owe, it would generate $150 B more in tax revenues. Total unpaid tax revenues owed in US in US is a bit over $300B, according to the WSJ. So the top 1% owe as much in unpaid taxes than the rest of us combined.

Expand full comment
Anti Fragile's avatar

Source for your first sentence claim?

Expand full comment
Ann22's avatar

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/22/tax-evasion-by-wealthiest-americans-tops-150-billion-a-year-irs.html

Now…you can argue you don’t trust the IRS. But if you look at the complexity of the tax code, the skills of the best tax lawyers, the complexity of the returns that uber wealthy must file, and the small number audits the IRS conducts, I’m not entirely sure that number is accurate. But ok, let’s halve it, or even less….it’s still a lot of money.

I’ll tell you what really bothers me.

1) When so much money is concentrated in the hands of so few, those few, not voters, will run the world.

2) It blows my mind that those who make more money than we can even get our heads around, find it necessary to either ignore tax laws or go to extremes to avoid it.

3) if you or I are audited…good luck being able to afford legal help, and rest assured IRS will find even your innocent mistakes, and you will pay the fines. It happened to me once. I don’t resent the audit, or even the small penalty I paid because I had nothing to hide. I pay my taxes.

4). Our taxes are too complicated and middle and low income families often can’t afford legal help to,prepare them. This results in innocent mistaken and/or in overpaying what you owe.

Expand full comment
Anti Fragile's avatar

Thanks for providing that Ann22, very helpful. I agree with all your excellent points.

A few notes to add emphasis: (1) I have no problem with anyone legally doing whatever they can to maximize their after-tax income. Arguments that the wealthy should voluntarily pay more taxes hold zero water. We know the argument is bs because no one who wields it, including rich people, ever voluntarily send extra money to the IRS.

(2) The other supposed $150M of underpaid taxes, from the unwealthy, is from my anecdotal experience frequently true tax cheating. Not from people who are W2 employees, but with a significant swath of service providers and small business owners. It's extremely common, for example, in the construction and restaurant industries for income to be hidden via cash and barter transactions (I'll brick your house if you do the wiring for mine) and by inflating expenses in the small sole proprietor segment. People who clean houses, do yard work, etc are often cash businesses where income is dramatically and intentionally underreported. On a percentage of income basis, if you believe the IRS' numbers, the cheating is far more rampant at the lower income levels. I'm not terribly resentful of that practice, because I do think tax rates are higher than they should be for almost everyone, and such cheating is the lower-income person's version of hiring a bevy of tax strategists and lawyers.

(3) That supposed $300M would barely dent our annual budget deficit, so I'm not nearly as worried about the IRS' collection problem as I am our insane government spending.

Expand full comment
Chuck's avatar

The IRS director is full of crap.

Expand full comment
feldspar's avatar

There are countless examples of misspending and graft by both corporations and billionaires and most of the repeals of current regulation seem designed to funnel much of government spending back to billionaires and corporations through dubious court decisions inculcated and buttressed by corporations and billionaires and their right-wing courtiers.

Low tax rates for corporations and billionaires in effect just ends up letting the most wasteful and corrupt among us drain the economy, eradicate millions of potential jobs, foster inequality, and squelch innovation.

Expand full comment
John Murphy's avatar

I didn't know that trial lawyers, Wall Street or big tech was "right wing"?

Expand full comment
feldspar's avatar

Now you do.

Expand full comment
David S's avatar

Aaron. I'm enjoying the discussion. You state that "the top 1% of earners pay something like 40% of total income tax?" What percentage of all income in the US goes to the top 1% Of course the rich pay more taxes. THEY EARN VAST SUMS OF MONEY! And isn't that the point Builttoill was making. If you're one of the fortunate folk to make so much money, shouldn't you want to give back what America helped you to achieve? Now....how our gov't spends the money is a whole other story. I agree that corruption is rampant and our money is squandered. We need to fix this but lowering taxes on the rich won't change that. It will only make things worse.

Expand full comment
badnabor's avatar

I agree that redistribution of wealth through the Federal tax system is a terrible model. In my opinion this problem pales in comparison to the hidden tax we all pay due to excessive government borrowing and, apparently never-ending printing of currency. The spending , agreed on by both parties, is bringing this nation to the edge of peril. Read some history, fiat money will end badly.

Expand full comment
David S's avatar

badnabor, I mostly agree with you but what system of taxation would you propose? If we want to have "The Commons", it has to be paid for some way. Our forefathers fought against taxation without representation, NOT no taxation. An engaged citizenry who hold their elected officials accountable for the management of our society is what's needed. But, we've been distracted. Neil Postman's great book Amusing Ourselves to Death predicted this 40 years ago, before the WWW and "smart" (dumb) phones in every kids hands.

Expand full comment
Ann22's avatar

I see your point on spending. But someone in this thread made a great point…(unfettered) capitalism concentrates wealth into the hands of a few.

And I would add that when that much wealth is controlled by a few, they, not voters, will control the world.

Expand full comment
Skenny's avatar

Strike "when" and "will" from that last sentence. And it wasn't unfettered capitalism that did it. Our "leaders" and their owners/donors have concentrated wealth through government's selection of winners. Think Federal Reserve, QE, forced vaccines, Obamacare, perpetual wars, "greening", Too Big to Fail, etc., etc., ....

Expand full comment
Ann22's avatar

I’m not yet as pessimistic as you seem, and don’t agree with all your complaints about our system. I also believe in capitalism that is heavily regulated to balance profit and public good, and ours is not. Incorporation has found steroids and created the monster, concentrated wealth, and you are correct …the very powerful donors now pull the strings. It’s too easy to blame programs or institutions you don’t care for, but the root of our problem is the power of money.

Expand full comment
Lynne Morris's avatar

I have agreed with much of your commentary but not "capitalism that is heavily regulated to balance profit and public good". First I do not think that is capitalism and certainly is not free market capitalism. My proble rather is corporatism which is the modern preferred method of raising capital. And which has been supported by the federal government since the Civil War. We have an at best an incestuous relationship between big corporations and the government and at worst a very corrupt relationship where corporate actors assume government roles long enough to.assure the flow of dollars to their cronies. Taxpayer dollars. And it is getting worse because you have the large money management funds (BlackRock, Vanguard) controlled by very powerful individuals who are buying majority shares in major corporations This gives those powerful individuals control over significant swaths of the American economy. Talk about consolidating money and power in the hands of the few. And as already pointed out, the votes of the American citizen are already compromised by corporate influence.

Expand full comment
gjr's avatar

Government is just a tool for the ulttra- wealthy and powerful.

Expand full comment
Skenny's avatar

As you correctly pointed out, the programs/institutions are just the symptoms.

Expand full comment
Dave's avatar

Let me add a couple thoughts. What is not usually acknowledged is that capitalism concentrates wealth upward. Left alone capitalism would produce a few (1-2%) incredibly wealthy people, with the rest struggling. So capitalist countries create taxing policies to take some of that wealth and use it for the common good. Including in that common good is infrastructure that helps capitalist create profit (Electrical grids, roads, bridges, railroads, safe shipping lanes, etc.). It's a compact, for the good of all we will help you make profit, while you give back in the form of taxes which we will then distribute in various quantities to groups of people. Much of politics is really about who gets what from the government. Defense Industry gets the biggest share and has since WW2. Regulatory agencies get a good amount. And down at the end is anti-poverty programs. So far this has worked very well for us as a country. But increasingly, people are forgetting that compact, especially the wealthy.

FYI quoting only 1 tax is not being fair. Payroll taxes, SS taxes, sales taxes, etc. all hit the poorest the hardest. But let's be honest you can't get blood from a stone, so you need to get taxes mostly from the upper 20%. And yes it sucks to be middle class where you don't have a lot of excess money and no-one thinks of you being needy. Just send your kid to college and see what your bills are (comparatively) if your family makes around $100K compared to folks who make $60K or compare the amount of taxes you pay.

Anyway, my 2 cents worth............

Expand full comment
Lynne Morris's avatar

That is the way it should work.

Expand full comment
Ann22's avatar

Aaron, Builttoil beat me to a response! I’m 95% in agreement with him. The only thing I’d add is that tax breaks for the wealthy, or trickle down economics has not resulted in reinvestment in our middle class: American industry and jobs. It’s part, but not all, of the reason we have a growing wealth gap. Also appreciate Builttoil comments regarding his comfortable salary compared to those such as teachers, fire fighters…. Those in the 1% might have earned their money, but they made their fortunes with the blood, sweat and tears of those who worked for them AND the infrastructure, security, and support systems this country offered them. I think people who work hard and make it big deserve to be wealthy. But once you reach an economic tipping point, your ability to make money increases by spades by doing nothing more than investing because you can now afford risks. And expensive tax lawyers.

Expand full comment
Carl L. McWilliams's avatar

"Trickle down economics is where the rich piss all over the middle class"

Expand full comment
Ann22's avatar

Carl L McWilliams……..LOL! That is perfect!

Expand full comment
Ann22's avatar

Oh and that convenient capital gains tax too…

Expand full comment
Lawyers Guns & Money's avatar

I don't necessarily trust the government to spend my money more smartly than me, but I probably trust the government to spend billionaires' money better than they can, because, with few exceptions, they're not exactly tithing. Not to a church, not to charities, not to help repair junior high school gymnasiums or public pedestrian malls.

Elon Musk appears to invest his money back into his many businesses. Good for him. He's the exception. Bill Gates spends his time trying to short Tesla's stock. Bezos builds half-billion dollar boats that can't even clear the bridges to make it out to sea. Zuckerberg is attempting to buy the island of Kauai, and Larry Ellison already owns Lanai. Oprah's massive Maui ranch is piddling by comparison.

We can't stop providing public services, and the neglect we've given to basic infrastructure is embarrassing. Certainly the spending needs to be examined. And budgets actually have to be passed, vs. the Continuing Resolution crap they do now.

Expand full comment
Lynne Morris's avatar

The honest truth is that there is little government, any government, can do to fix what ails us. As difficult as it is to accept the wealth and lack of civic responsibility of those you named and others like them, it was the federal government that created those monsters. Every single one of them.got wealthy with the assistance of the federal government an old tradition dating back to the robber barons and tycoons of the Gilded Age. The Federal Reserve exists to facilitate it. With money generated from taxpayers, business and individual, to favor some and deny others. All justified in furtherance of the myth that the government can, should and will fix things. The government is spending vast sums to combat climate change but no longer provides rudimentary services reliably. Not military preparedness. Not border security. Not secure and reliable transportation. Certainly not quality education. All it is accomplishing at this point is the micromanagement of the daily lives of its citizens while creating creating new billionaires in favored industries. Musk is reportedly on track to be the world's first trillionaire. It is unseemly.

Expand full comment
Lawyers Guns & Money's avatar

You make some excellent points, Lynne. The more I read your comment, the more I found myself reaching even deeper disappointments with our government(s).

The only quibble I'd have is to suggest we do not have military preparedness. We spend as much as the next 10 highest-spending nations combined. We're plenty safe. And the last thing we need is even more offensive shit for the government to get in even more wars over.

Expand full comment
Lynne Morris's avatar

I wholeheartedly agree. As you might suspect I don't think throwing money at an issue necessarily fixes anything.

Expand full comment
Burt's avatar

" I probably trust the government to spend billionaires' money better than they can..."

Why in the world would anybody think this.

Expand full comment
Megan Baker's avatar

You mentioned the waste of financing the pointless killing of Ukrainians but not the industrial slaughter being committed by Israel, which murders more children in a month than have died in Ukraine in two years. They're both criminal enterprises which will, and should, haunt us for the rest of our lives. I do agree about Bari Weiss's outlet, where wading into the comments with a sane perspective is akin to wearing a fur coat at a PETA convention. I subscribed for a while because I'm fed up with wokism, but Weiss lost her mind completely after October 7th and I had to flee. And yes to taxing the rich. In 2024, amassing a fortune has never been more disconnected from the performance of actual, productive work.

Expand full comment
Lawyers Guns & Money's avatar

You're absolutely right about the slaughter in Gaza. Glenn Greenwald had a great show recently (last couple nights) on his Locals channel, in which he picked apart a bunch of lies about Israel's war, and brought up Bari's latest as well.

Expand full comment
David S's avatar

Yes! Glen has been on it like stink on shit. So has Norman Finkelstein. I'm Jewish and it appears to me that Jews are either rabid Zionists or see the truth about the slaughter in Gaza. Most of my Jewish community, sadly is in the former camp, including my family.

Expand full comment
Megan Baker's avatar

There's a film out called "Israelism" about the indoctrination of Jewish Americans into the cult of Israel. I'm hopeful that this system of indoctrination is on its way out.

Expand full comment
David S's avatar

Thanks Megan. I'll check it out.

Expand full comment
Torpedo 8's avatar

Good post, a few points:

Giving money to the federal government doesn't reduce our debt because they manage to spend $7 Trillion after taking in $4 Trillion;

Because we have a progressive tax, giving the lower income folks a tax cut gives the rich a tax cut, because tax rates increase with income, so we effectively cut taxes on the first $50k or so, including the rich people's first $50k. This situation is baked into our system;

Investment accounts are insanely productive, not to be analogized to Scrooge McDuck's swimming pool of money. It does not just "sit there" and do I need to go through George Bailey's justification for the savings & loan to prove that?;

At the time, Warren Buffet's secretary was making $350k/year, but he didn't mention that. And, of course, earned income is taxed, while unrealized profits are not. This is a no-brainer.;

We do not need "tax code reform" as that's just rearranging the deck chairs. We need a flat tax, or the Fair Tax, so people can spend their time productively, rather than investing days and treasure to make sure they don't end up in Biden's jails.

Expand full comment
DoctorBuzzard's avatar

I sincerely doubt it has anything to do with education as much as or even your place on the socio-economic ladder, as it does with your place of institutional or private enterprise employment. If you’re employed in the academic bureaucratic world, chances are, especially if you’re employed by one of the many governmental alphabet extensions... Chances are that you’re insulated from anything that occurs in what most know as the real world. Even during the Covid pandemic those employed by one of the many governmental agencies you did not miss a beat... While the rest of the real world art f the nation, were locked in and frozen out of our jobs, business, and livelihood.

Expand full comment
David S's avatar

Well said. Brilliant!

Expand full comment
Tom Larson's avatar

I will patiently wait for a reply to your query as well. I would sincerely like to hear one too!

Expand full comment
Charles weaver's avatar

Taxhe rich means tax everyone who has more than me. Imagine the financial chaos if all US billionaires had 1 year to pay half their wealth to the government. Many would applaud this but the stock liquidation and panic sales of real estate holdings would drive the market into a tailspin which would cost the average investor dearly and result in a huge decrease in household wealth and taxes paid

Worse yet, two thousand billionaires paying a billion each would raise only a few months worth of deficit spending

It’s a political scam pushed by unscrupulous politicians trying to buy favor and endorsed by fools. ( talk about ignorant)

Expand full comment
Ann22's avatar

Is anyone here proposing they give up half thier wealth?

Expand full comment
Charles weaver's avatar

nothing I’ve seen here but I’ve seen proposals that would amount to that.

The point is we have a critical spending problem that has to be fixed. No amount of taxation will solve.

Just too much deficit interest and debt

It’s gonna take a monumental budget cut for years to pull us back from the brink that will free up a huge sum of dollars now going to interest

Every senator and house member who has contributed to this mess should be prosecuted for fraud

Expand full comment
Tim's avatar

To add a little fuel to the fire and perhaps broaden a perspective

consider a read of "Limitarianism, The Case Against Extreme

Wealth" by Ingrid Robeyns, published 24.01.16. Tom Piketty gives

it a must read endorsement. Robeyns credentials are pretty impressive.

Expand full comment
DMC's avatar

The question that begs is how does higher taxation, or more efficient taxation for that matter, help the people in the above situation? There is no evidence that higher revenues from taxes are one any real benefit except when they result in debt reduction

Expand full comment
Ed Maguire's avatar

There is a dwindling cohort of Dems that aren’t captive to the coastal cultural activist left, mainly rust belt union supporting Ds. John Fetterman and Joe Manchin are cut from this cloth. However the media and cultural power centers on the coasts have diverged sharply in recent decades, veering to the left ever further to placate the activists

Expand full comment
badnabor's avatar

I worked in the oil field for 40+ years and I'm going have to see some proof to back up your "tax payer subsidized oils fields kept open by non other than Biden" declaration. I personally know three independent producers and can tell you that Biden sure as hell isn't helping them out. As for Krugman and the other elites that claim the metropolitan are subsidizing the rural areas, I call BS. In the first place increasing corporate and personal wealth by basically circulating money amongst themselves and adding a handling fee, as in broker fees, interest, service charges, etc., is doing nothing in terms of production. The only real new wealth is through agriculture, mining and oil production. These industries actually PRODUCE new and tangible wealth through commodities. Metropolitan areas in reality don't even come close to creating wealth. Moving money around and pushing paper survive and thrive on the backs of new created wealth.

Expand full comment
Ann22's avatar

Energy, agriculture and transportation are the three most heavily subsidized industries in the US. While alternative energy is subsidized, those subsidies are relatively recent and are scheduled to phase out in the future. Not so for oil, as US taxpayers send the industry about $20 billion a year; globally subsidies range into the trillions (https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/global-fossil-fuel-subsidies-rise-despite-calls-phase-out-2023-11-23). The US has subsidized oil since…the 20s? 30s?

I understand the pros and cons of subsidies. We all appreciate affordable gas and heating fuel, food and transportation. My comment about Biden was that these guys were griping about Biden, while US is pumping more oil now than ever, and more than any other country in the world. The reason we don’t hear about that is because Biden is, let’s just say, “upsetting” a big proportion of his base with environmental concerns (count me in this pod). I live in a rural state, big ag. Last I checked a few years ago, our states federal subsidy $ to Fed tax $ was 9:1. The Infrastructure bill also throws huge amounts of taxpayer money into roads, rails and air travel…to rebuild an aging and inadequate infrastructure. Think jobs. Just heard Phoenix is permitting a chip manufacturing plant. Think 10000 jobs. So yep, government has its ills and as you rightly point out, corporate and finance sectors circulate money, in a sense. And yes, Dems and Biden have their problems, but again what has the GOP or Trump done for the working class. Surely not his tax bill, that again sent most of the money into the pockets of the 1 percent.

I respectfully disagree with or maybe misunderstand your view of metro areas. Commodities are important. But are you saying manufacturing doesn’t create wealth? Metro areas host a a more diverse workforce than that of suit and tie financial sectors. Quickly found these tidbits in a Brookings Inst article:

“America’s metropolitan areas, particularly the large metros and central metro counties, are the nation’s manufacturing centers. Metros contained nearly 80 percent of all manufacturing jobs in 2010, and 95 percent of very high-technology manufacturing jobs. Nearly all metros specialize strongly in at least one manufacturing industry.

Manufacturing in most metros falls into one of six broad categories of industry clustering. These are anchored in high specialization in computers and electronics, transportation equipment, chemicals, machinery, food production, and low-wage manufacturing industries.”

It only makes sense. To manufacture you need labor and infrastructure, both live in metro areas. Personally I appreciate metro areas and all the millions who live there…because they aren’t living in my backyard ( ;

Expand full comment
Chuck's avatar

You know those aren't actually subsidies, right?

Expand full comment
Tom Sparks's avatar

Ann,

I think you misunderstand how FF energy subsidies (if they exist, and it’s mostly a definitional argument imo; ie, does expensing drawn down/produced reserves count as a subsidy). Companies compete against each other. In commodities the average return reverts to the cost of capital, due to competition. Thus, over time any subsidy would get passed on to the consumer. So any subsidy benefits consumers, not corporations. (Assuming a competitive market, which is usually but not aalways the case).

I know from bitter experience as a long time energy investor! Long term returns in energy are mediocre. You only make real money if you successfully time this highly cyclical industry.

Expand full comment
Ann22's avatar

I’m not sure I understand that. So you are saying that if a barrel of oil is selling at say $100, it costs oil companies that much to produce it? Or are you saying that the swings in demand, and corresponding profits, over time result in poor returns?

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/big-oil-doubles-profits-blockbuster-2022-2023-02-08/

Expand full comment
Tom Sparks's avatar

I am saying that over the long run the return on capital for commodity companies tends to average their cost of capital, which generally is around 12%. These are highly cyclical industries. There will be multi year periods Where they have over invested, and hemorrhage money afterward. There are times like now, where past under investment means margin is higher. The Reuters article you link is misleading. If you look at the return on capital for the last 15 years, it has been pretty dismal. Returns are just mean reverting by being higher than the past many years . This, too shall end at some point and returns will drop. In commodities, we have a saying that the cure for high prices is high prices. Meaning that high prices bring on supply, usually over supply, which then drives prices down to unprofitable levels.

Having said all that, the unprecedented political influence in fossil fuels, makes predicting the future for them very hard. They could be very profitable for a long time as oil is higher due to lack of investment due to political pressure, since we are supposedly going to stop using fossil fuels, so I invest

Expand full comment
Lawyers Guns & Money's avatar

Great comments Ann, and as you see, others joined in the highly respectful discussion. As much as I am upset about the Democrats all of a sudden loving stupid wars, censorship, and spying on our own citizens, their complete and total sellout of workers to the Wall Street overlords is the most shameful.

But because of my disdain for almost all Republican domestic ideas (tax cuts for rich and corporations, benefits cuts for everyone else), I'm left without a home. Looks like a good year for a protest vote.

Expand full comment
Megan Baker's avatar

"Sudden?" The Democratic Party became a piece of shit way back when Bill Clinton abandoned its values and sold it to the highest donors. It's been a bad joke ever since, a long, long time now.

Expand full comment
Lawyers Guns & Money's avatar

Well, the Dems' love of spying on our own citizens has only been around since Obama, and the love of censorship has really taken off in the past 7 years. But yeah, the desertion of workers started under Clinton and his DLC.

Expand full comment
Dave's avatar

Censorship has been around a long time. Comstock Laws against "pornography" in 1873. The moral panic around families and immigration that led to prohibition folded into the anti-pornography panic. Anti communism in the early part of the century which ended up giving the intelligence community card-blanche in the 1950s. Operation Mockingbird, a project of censorship and propaganda by the CIA started in 1960 as a response to the Soviets. NYT (and many other media companies) lying about the Vietnam War and then "weapons of mass destruction." Each and everyone of these censorship/propaganda activities has had a response by liberty oriented folks.

Expand full comment
Stxbuck's avatar

Taxes are the eternal political currency. I support business friendly tax policy but I also understand that income taxes are political currency and always a point of negotiation. I’m not knee jerk anti-tax, I’m knee jerk anti-government waste, corruption, and gross inefficiency-and the only way to stop this-at any level-is to not fund it. It’s the same logic as the “don’t feed the animals” sign at the zoo-but corporatist big government types realize they need to throw as ostensible social welfare bone to cover their political behinds.

Expand full comment
Vic Adamov's avatar

"taxpayer subsidized oils fields" Really? you know that for sure? please provide evidence.

Expand full comment
Ann22's avatar

Yes. It’s common knowledge? Google it.

Expand full comment
craazyman's avatar

What’s the old saw

“If a man’s not a liberal at age 20 he has no heart. If he’s still a liberal at age 40, he has no head.”

Oft quoted and tweaked over centuries by many famous people.

It took me a little longer than 40, but I was never political and barely cared enough to pay cursory attention. Now I get it.

Expand full comment
David S's avatar

I agree craazyman. But I would add one more stage to the evolution of the political and social mind. If a person isn't a realist by the time they're 50, they haven't been paying attention to the benefits and failures of BOTH philosophies. I no longer adhere to any dogma. There's good and bad in every framework.

Expand full comment
craazyman's avatar

Yep. Agree completely.

Expand full comment
Patrick's avatar

We are the world.........

Expand full comment
Torpedo 8's avatar

That was Churchill. It was, has no heart, has no brain.

Expand full comment
craazyman's avatar

He was one of many. Google it.

It's been attributed in various forms to several historical figures, each of whom tweaked it to their purpose evidently.

Expand full comment
CC's avatar

Yup - born & raised in Massachusetts so I was indoctrinated as a Democrat from the get-go (‘youthful capture’!) - but had an epiphany in my 40’s that made me realize I was never a Democrat 😂😂😂

Expand full comment
CMCM's avatar

I get tired of calling these people "elites". Elite what? Idiots?

Expand full comment
Susan Russell's avatar

Well said.

Expand full comment
DMC's avatar

Most people align their views with what works for them. I imagine things would be easier for you if you just went along with your contemporaries. Not quite as top tier as you guys but I get it

Expand full comment
ErrorError