OT The new "black" is "socialism" - Page 6

in 2007 1% of the americans paid 95% of the taxes - the tipping poing is close at hand!

Maggie Mae -- I DO NOT want to label you a racist.  That is, not more than anyone else (I think we all, including myself, are "racialist" in that we note that others are different than ourselves and our unconscious processes that information).  You are human, so you do on some level fear "the other" --  but this does not make you a racist in the sense you mean the term.

I will repeat my point AGAIN (although keepthefaith could be right that it is useless): The tag "socialism" is an ugly label, used by most thoughtlessly, but a thoughtful creation of the far right fringe.  It taps into deep seated fears (notably but not exclusively race fears.)

Really read Don't Think of an Elephant.  This is not a new game.  The old label "tax and spend liberal" stopped working as Bush/Cheney bankrupted us.  "Socialism" is the new label.   (How times change!  The brilliant, late historian Hofstadter said that when he graduated from college in the 30s, everyone had to decide if they were a communist or a liberal!  Those were the two choices.)  The blue dogs in Congress are not really democrats -- as the health care debacle shows.  They are republicans who are temporarily standing in as democrats until the electorate feels the bad republicans have been sufficiently punished.  But voters have a very short memory, and those blue dogs may become full-blooded red dogs soon, and then DC goes back to gridlock.  This is what the GOP is counting on, but I do not blame their leadership for inflaming the socialist rhetoric.  Nor do I say they are racists -- not in the large sense.

We DO live in a racist society.  We tolerate terrible conditions for black and hispanic children -- far out of proportion to white poverty, which is also too large for me.  We have come a long way from the segregated and explicitly racist south and the implicitly segregated and racist north, but we still have a long way to go.  Sure there are examples of reverse discrimination, but there are many, many more examples of black kids graduating valecdictorian (#1) of their inner city high school classes -- that is, they did everything anyone expected of them, as well as anyone asked -- who then go on to founder in top universities because segregated education is much worse in black schools.  My wife teaches at a school that teaches perhaps 15 different AP courses-- the key for getting into a decent college today. 

Most public black high schools teach none.  There is nothing a black kid in those schools can do to educate herself sufficiently.
 

 

 

 

MVF - I strongly disagree with a lot of statements in your Post.   I suppose we perceive things differently -- it depends on our own life experiences.  This is an area that really "ticks me off."   I grew up in a State noted for its extreme poverty.   I know what it is to be poor.   So, please do not go there with me.   Yes, we are in a Racist society, but it is NOT the Racist society as you see it.

Enough said -- this makes me very angry.

OK Maggie tell us what it is to be poor! Tell us what it is like to be white and poor as opposed to black and poor! You live in America I suppose so I can really tell you you have no idea what poverty is like! Tell us what it is like to be disabled and poor! I grew up in west Virginia and I suppose I could say I know what it is like to be poor! Unless you have traveled outside of America and seen real poverty your conception of poverty is insufficient ! Perhaps when you are subsisting on one or two meals a week and no shelter or income 'no shoes one set of clothing!  Compared to other poverty stricken places on this planet Americas poor are rich by comparison! Appalachia is a rich kingdom compared to Haiti! Is your water safe to drink? can you get medical attention? ever suffered from malaria? Seen the effects of malnutrition and water born illnesses1 America has enjoyed all the blessings God has given us and america is spitting in his face!

MVF, to illustrate my point about the misuse of the word "socialism" take a look at SitaMom's last post which starts with the Merriam-Webster dictionary.

Just look at the leap that she makes between the definitions - which are arguable - and how those definitions fit into what Obama has done. The action relating to GM evolves to include the entire auto industry. The bail-out of the banks means that Obama has effectively taken over the banks................and so on. The impression that we would get from SM's post is that a full blown nationalization of all companies is in the works. The really unfortunate part of it is that she - and many others like her - believe this nonsense.

As I say, the culprit is the right wing blogs which spread misinformation and disinformation and the lunatic fringe just laps it up. One of the posters on this forum quoted something from this forum:

www.imao.us/

Take a look at the banner: "Unfair Unbalanced Unmedicated" it says proudly! 

In the "About" section, the blogger says that it is meant to be a humorous site - the problem is that some miss the humor and take what is said as the unvarnished truth. The right-wing blogs don't even pretend to offer any balanced perspective and yet the lunatic fringe laps it up! They formulate their views based on these blogs and work themselves up into a frenzy!

some can't even find moderately articulate words to react with....('poo-poo'??)

Now that was one of her more articulate posts!

Some of you object to people mentioning their areas of expertise and education -- as apparently any analysis is equal, whatever the level of experience or ignorance -- but I feel the need to say that I am NOT a public finance economist.  So this is just my analysis as a general economist without specific tax expertise.

SitasMom -- you cannot mean this nutty claim: in 2007 1% of the americans paid 95% of the taxes - the tipping poing is close at hand!

This figure is so preposterous on the face of it I have to respond.

In fact, the top 1% pay  less than 38% of income taxes.  My source is the IRS.  http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/04asastr.pdf

That group earns about 18% of the income.  These are the folks earning close to a million a year on average.  Many of them the Wall Streeters we all love to hate.  They pay only a small additional share of other taxes (such as social security) and they pay the relatively low capital gains tax on many of their dividends.

The overall effect of the US tax code is a SLIGHT improvement in income inequality after-tax than before-tax, but that small impact has fallen somewhat over time.  The Gini coefficient (the official measure of inequality) ranges theoretically from 0 (complete equality) to 1(complete inequality -- obvious unsustainable, as everyone but the one with all the loot would be dead.)

In 1979 (last year with Carter, who DID tax the rich) the US Gini was .469 before taxes and .439 after taxes -- so the US tax code had the effect of reducing inequality by .03/.469 or about 7% (doing this in my head so check my calc).

In 2002, after Bush's rebate, the US Gini was .555 before taxes (inequality in the US had INCREASED by .86/.469 or by about 19% - ditto the head calculation so it could be off) and .525 after taxes (about a .3/.555 or not quite 6% decline).

See IRS data and analysis for details.

BOTTOM LINE: Since the end of the Carter administration, income inequality has increased dramatically (almost 20%) AND the tax code improvement on inequality has DECREASED from about 7% to less than 6%.

That is, things have gotten worse for most, relatively speaking, and the tax code helps the majority vis a vis the rich somewhat less than it used to.  There is absolutely no case that the rich are burdened by taxes, or that taxes are increasing.   In fact, Obama returns us to almost the level of marginal tax rates as Clinton -- and is much, much closer to Reagan than Carter.  So the Obama impact will be to push the improvement after taxes factor back to the 6-7% range and to improve income distribution (relative to Bush) by about 4% (back to Clinton Gini levels of .53-.54).

Sadly, the US is one of the most unequal societies in the world.  Even the most generous estimates of us have us in the 40s.  Our wealth inequality, however, is in the 80s! Compare this with a wealth inequality in colonial America on the eve of the American Revolution in the 60s (haven risen from the wonderful middle class democracy of the late 17th century).

Namibia, Bolivia, Brazil, the Central African Republic, Lesotho, and perhaps a few others are worse than we are now.

Under that wild-eyed LIBERAL Jimmy Carter, we were in league with Madagascar, Malaysia, and Argentina.

The most advanced countries in the world (you know, the Swedens, Luxembourgs, and Belgiums -- quick, cry Socialism!) have Gini coefficients IN THE 20's.  Is it a wonder that American Brazil-style inequality does not resonate with the rest of the advanced world?