P.J. O'Rourke's graduation advice

[Roxanne Appleby]

excerpt from "Fairness, idealism and other atrocities: Commencement advice you're unlikely to hear elsewhere."

1. Go out and make a bunch of money! Here we are living in the world's most prosperous country, surrounded by all the comforts, conveniences and security that money can provide. Yet no American political, intellectual or cultural leader ever says to young people, "Go out and make a bunch of money." Instead, they tell you that money can't buy happiness. Maybe, but money can rent it.

There's nothing the matter with honest moneymaking. Wealth is not a pizza, where if I have too many slices you have to eat the Domino's box. In a free society, with the rule of law and property rights, no one loses when someone else gets rich.

2. Don't be an idealist! Idealists are also bullies. The idealist says, "I care more about the redwood trees than you do. I care so much I can't eat. I can't sleep. It broke up my marriage. And because I care more than you do, I'm a better person. And because I'm the better person, I have the right to boss you around."

3. Get politically uninvolved! All politics stink. Even democracy stinks. Imagine if our clothes were selected by the majority of shoppers, which would be teenage girls. I'd be standing here with my bellybutton exposed. Imagine deciding the dinner menu by family secret ballot. I've got three kids and three dogs in my family. We'd be eating Froot Loops and rotten meat.

4. Forget about fairness! I am here to advocate for unfairness. I've got a 10-year-old at home. She's always saying, "That's not fair." When she says this, I say, "Honey, you're cute. That's not fair. Your family is pretty well off. That's not fair. You were born in America. That's not fair. Darling, you had better pray to God that things don't start getting fair for you." What we need is more income, even if it means a bigger income disparity gap.

full text at: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-orourke4-2008may04,0,3597821,full.story

 

[R. Richard]

excerpt from "Fairness, idealism and other atrocities: Commencement advice you're unlikely to hear elsewhere."

1. Go out and make a bunch of money! Here we are living in the world's most prosperous country, surrounded by all the comforts, conveniences and security that money can provide. Yet no American political, intellectual or cultural leader ever says to young people, "Go out and make a bunch of money." Instead, they tell you that money can't buy happiness. Maybe, but money can rent it.

There's nothing the matter with honest moneymaking. Wealth is not a pizza, where if I have too many slices you have to eat the Domino's box. In a free society, with the rule of law and property rights, no one loses when someone else gets rich.

Unfortunately, I was forced to attend high school. The teachers there wanted me to spend the entire rest of my life at pursuits where I had no talent and, in any case, where there would be little or no money earned. The same teachers bellyached all the time about more money for their department. The only thing that money can't buy is poverty.

People who get rich, by and large, hire oher people to help them get still richer. The man [woman/other] who would be rich helps other people, not from some sort of idealistic compulsion, but because paying others makes the rich person richer.

2. Don't be an idealist! Idealists are also bullies. The idealist says, "I care more about the redwood trees than you do. I care so much I can't eat. I can't sleep. It broke up my marriage. And because I care more than you do, I'm a better person. And because I'm the better person, I have the right to boss you around."

Not only do idealists have he right to boss others around, they have the right to insist that others concern themselves with the concerns of the idealists. Idealists should be required to read the 14th amendment to the Constitution.

3. Get politically uninvolved! All politics stink. Even democracy stinks. Imagine if our clothes were selected by the majority of shoppers, which would be teenage girls. I'd be standing here with my bellybutton exposed. Imagine deciding the dinner menu by family secret ballot. I've got three kids and three dogs in my family. We'd be eating Froot Loops and rotten meat.

In my time, I have worked for a number of companies where politics was king. Most of the political companies are no longer in business.

4. Forget about fairness! I am here to advocate for unfairness. I've got a 10-year-old at home. She's always saying, "That's not fair." When she says this, I say, "Honey, you're cute. That's not fair. Your family is pretty well off. That's not fair. You were born in America. That's not fair. Darling, you had better pray to God that things don't start getting fair for you." What we need is more income, even if it means a bigger income disparity gap.

Fairness is an ideal. See my previous comments about idealists.

 

[cloudy]

What we need is more income, even if it means a bigger income disparity gap.

sure, this is exactly what we need: richer rich people, and poorer poor people. I know! Let's just build internment camps, and put all the poor people in there, and that way we can forget about them!

Oh, wait....it's already been done.

 

[trysail]

Marvelous advice. I wish somebody'd given me the same advice when I was young. Unfortunately, I was programmed to save the world; I've never really recovered.

Even aside from the fact that he is a fellow Mencken devotee, I've always liked O'Rourke.

 

[S-Des]

I love PJ, he's one of the truly brilliant (and slightly twisted) minds of our generation.

 

[DesertPirate]

True genious is a wonder to behold.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

sure, this is exactly what we need: richer rich people, and poorer poor people. I know! Let's just build internment camps, and put all the poor people in there, and that way we can forget about them!

Oh, wait....it's already been done.

Oh dear - a "C--" on reading comprehension here. From the context it is quite clear that the author is advocating richer-rich people and richer-poor people.

 

[S-Des]

From the context it is quite clear that the author is advocating richer-rich people and richer-poor people.

PJ is a tireless crusader against the belief that keeping people from getting rich is the best way to help the poor. You could try to point out that it hasn't worked in any other country it's been tried in (or that immigrants are risking their lives to come here even if it means they'll probably be among our poor), but people who want to believe that it's the only way, will never hear anything else. I do believe there are limits to this philosophy (especially when the higher-ups in corporations vote themselves raises and pay for it by cutting their work force until they put everyone out of business), but it doesn't detract from the overall reality that our economy works best when people are working hard and making money.

 

[Pure]

Clever and provocative

But not true

O Rourke In a free society, with the rule of law and property rights, no one loses when someone else gets rich.

Countrywide and its CEO Angelo Mozilo got rich, mostly within the law. Thousands of foreclosures have resulted.

A true statement, rather than a Rand armchair mantra is "In a free society, with loopholes in the law, it's often true that one person's gain in wealth is NOT against the interests of many--occasionally most--other persons."

Rourke, above, is just mouthing Gekko-ism, the old dogma "greed is good."

O ROURKE4. Forget about fairness! I am here to advocate for unfairness. I've got a 10-year-old at home. She's always saying, "That's not fair." When she says this, I say, "Honey, you're cute. That's not fair. Your family is pretty well off. That's not fair. You were born in America. That's not fair. Darling, you had better pray to God that things don't start getting fair for you."

Cute. But look at the example. A benevolent dictator parent does as he sees best, despite the 10 year old's complaints of unfariness.

Applied to society, this is elitism: it's great when it works, and crappy when it doesn't --e.g. the present Republican party and corporate elite in bed with it. Don't worry about FAIR bidding processes in Iraq, Mr. Cheney will decide in interests of all!
1850s or the new GWB-era capitalism with the 'fairness be damned approach' has resulted in a host of social evils.
---

These stories are in hundreds of sources, but here are some facts about Countrywide, the huge mortgage lending instution whose share value plummeted and the housing bubble burst:

R.I.P., Countrywide
By Morgan Housel April 28, 2008

http://www.fool.com/investing/dividends-income/2008/04/28/rip-countrywide.aspx

"Fear of a name increases fear of the thing itself."
-- J.K. Rowling

If Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling's perception of name fright holds true, Bank of America (NYSE: BAC) could be facing some serious buyer's remorse in the coming months.

After the pending acquisition of embattled mortgage lender Countrywide Financial (NYSE: CFC), BofA plans on ditching the Countrywide name in favor of its own less-tarnished label. Perhaps for good reason, BofA typically discontinues an acquisition's original moniker. Countrywide -- the nation's largest mortgage lender -- has become synonymous with the subprime debacle and the bloated lending practices that played a role in what has become one of the most rotten housing markets in decades.

A stained name can have a lasting effect on customers' brand awareness. I got a good chuckle recently when noticing an anti-crime poster outside a local Countrywide lending branch that read, "No cash in store." It had been graffitied out by an unknown individual to read, "No cash in company." Talk about negative public perception.

Adding to the shady reputation, Countrywide's high-profile CEO, Angelo Mozilo, recently caused Congress to raise an eyebrow when he, along with executives from Merrill Lynch (NYSE: MER) and Citigroup (NYSE: C), reaped massive fortunes while their respective companies withered away. Being at the center of both the subprime lending fiasco as well as the overpaid CEO debate, even with Mozilo's impressively deep tan, won't get you many votes on the "most admired companies" list.


http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/Opinion/Editorials/opnOPN24050508.htm

May 05, 2008
Foreclosing on the housing fix

Lending industry needs regulation, not government coddling

A small detail in the greater scheme of the ongoing housing crisis underscores the urgent need for tough regulation of the lending industry.

Federal investigators on Tuesday found evidence that when Countrywide Financial Corp, the nation's biggest mortgage lender, ran credit checks on prospective homebuyers, it deliberately overlooked inflated or made-up income figures. It then approved loans to such buyers and rated the loans as "prime," which means that "subprime" loans (or loans made to borrowers with shakier credit histories) were undercounted.
Countrywide hurt not just itself -- almost 8 percent of Countrywide's loans are at least 30 days past due, double last year's rate -- but contributed to the delinquency of a lending system that's accelerated the nation's economic decline.

The same day that information about the federal probe into Countrywide was reported, the company announced a loss of $893 million for the first three months of 2008. In Flagler County, where Countrywide financed numerous mortgages, the foreclosure rate in the first three months of the year was almost triple the rate of a year ago. Volusia's rate doubled. To make matters worse, the latest indicator of home prices in 20 key markets showed a 12.7 percent decline between February 2008 and February 2007, steepest in 20 years.

No single factor led to the housing crisis. But several identifiable factors just as clearly did: the Federal Reserve's heedless slashing of interest rates after 2001, poor or absent regulation, and a speculation-driven housing bubble that, like all bubbles, was bound to pop. The Federal Reserve can rectify monetary policy by adjusting its rates. But it's too much to expect the lending industry to rectify its errors on its own. Only Congress, along with the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department, all of whom can regulate the lending industry, can effectively fix the industry. The industry's response to just such proposed reforms proves it. Lenders don't want new regulations. Hooked on fantasy, they want suggestions and voluntary standards. The proposal from the Bush administration would do the lenders' bidding.

For example, the Securities and Exchange Commission can investigate credit-rating agencies, banks and other lenders and force them to disclose conflicts of interest or reveal to investors whether, for example, portfolios are backed by high-risk mortgage securities. The SEC failed in that regard in the past few years, but it has the regulatory power to be more aggressive -- and protective of investors and, by extension, consumers.

The Treasury Department wants to stop the commission from going down that path. Instead of favoring stricter rules and regulations, Treasury wants the SEC to adopt a more "collaborative" and "prudential" approach with the institutions it regulates. That means offering up voluntary guidelines and working out problems behind closed doors, an absurd idea that compelled three recent SEC chairmen, from Republican and Democratic administrations, to join in condemning it in a New York Times Op-Ed they entitled "Muzzling the Watchdog."

A similar struggle is unfolding over stricter regulations on lenders proposed by the Federal Reserve and lenders' backlash. Using a 1994 law that gives it regulatory authority, the Fed now requires that strict disclosure rules designed to prevent predatory practices apply to subprime loans, or with interest rates at least 8 percentage points above the usual rates. New standards would lower the threshold to loans with rates just 3 percentage points above prevailing rates. The rules would also forbid lenders from stuffing mortgages with hidden fees and penalties.

The lending industry's response? The rules would stifle the industry and lead to too many lawsuits. The industry is mobilizing lobbyists to demolish the proposed rules. It's also proving why stricter regulations are necessary: The lending industry will seek to profit from borrowers as far as rules (and, for now, the absence of rules) will let it. It will do so abusively sometimes, as the Countrywide-like mess illustrates. The lending industry did plenty to help create the housing crisis. Now it wants to prevent a reasonable fix. But the lending industry's credibility is as bankrupt as many of its credit lines.

Stricter regulation isn't the enemy. It's the only way to prevent a recurrence of the housing crisis. It's the protection consumers deserve, and the correction the industry is owed.

 

[Pure]

O Rourke's "rule of law" qualification

is designed to do a LOT of work, i.e. cover ALL the cases where wealth building hurts a great many others, and society as a whole.

For the laws are shaped, if not written, by the wealth seekers, as Simpson of the Wall Street Journal details below. Ameriquest was a main player in the subprime mortgage debacle, and NO ONE is going to jail, afaik.

http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB119906606162358773.html

Lender Lobbying Blitz
Abetted Mortgage Mess

Ameriquest Pressed
For Changes in Laws;
A Battle in New Jersey

By GLENN R. SIMPSON
December 31, 2007

During the housing boom, the subprime industry succeeded at more than just writing mortgages. It also shot down efforts by some states to curtail risky lending to borrowers with spotty credit.

Ameriquest Mortgage Co., until recently one of the nation's largest subprime lenders, was at the center of those battles. Working with a husband-and-wife team of Washington lobbyists, it handed out more than $20 million in political donations and played a big role in persuading legislators in New Jersey and Georgia to relax tough new laws. Those victories, in turn, helped blunt efforts by other states to crack down on reckless lending, critics of the industry contend.

Home loans made by Ameriquest and other subprime lenders are defaulting now in large numbers, roiling global credit markets and sparking debate about whether regulators and lawmakers should have anticipated the mess and taken action. A close look at Ameriquest's lobbying and political donations shows how the subprime industry maneuvered to defeat legislation that might have contained some of the damage.

Executives at Ameriquest, based in Orange, Calif., acknowledge that the company lobbied heavily against state lending restrictions, but say that other subprime lenders did so as well. In fact, a host of subprime lenders and banking trade groups, including Citigroup Inc., Wells Fargo & Co., Countrywide Financial Corp. and the Mortgage Bankers Association, spent heavily on lobbying and political giving.
Ameriquest, a unit of ACC Capital Holdings, has stopped making new subprime loans, and it has sold some operations and is winding down others. It is now a defendant in hundreds of lawsuits alleging mortgage fraud.

Data from federal and state campaign-finance records, Internal Revenue Service filings, and the National Institute on Money in State Politics show that from 2002 through 2006, Ameriquest, its executives and their spouses and business associates donated at least $20.5 million to state and federal political groups. In comparison, over the same time period, Countrywide Financial, another large subprime lender, gave about $2 million in campaign gifts, and spent an additional $6.7 million lobbying in Washington, records indicate.


Some of the giving by Ameriquest executives and associates was high-profile. President Bush received more than $200,000 for his 2004 re-election campaign, and Ameriquest founder Roland Arnall and his wife, Dawn, contributed more than $5 million to political organizations that backed the president. Last year, President Bush appointed Mr. Arnall ambassador to the Netherlands, and his wife took over as chairman of Ameriquest's parent company.

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's campaigns received at least $1.4 million, along with stacks of tickets to a Rolling Stones concert that were used to lure big donors. A spokesman for Gov. Schwarzenegger said his decisions are not influenced by campaign contributions. Mr. Arnall declined to comment. The White House said Mr. Arnall was nominated because of his qualifications.

Much of Ameriquest's efforts took place below the national radar, at the state level. State legislatures wanted to crack down on so-called predatory lending, which refers to the use of deceptive or unfair practices in the sale of high-interest loans, often to low-income borrowers who can't afford them. In New Jersey, for example, lawmakers passed a strong predatory-lending law in 2003 that made it difficult for Ameriquest to continue doing business there.


Washington lobbyist Wright Andrews and his wife, Lisa, coordinated much of the industry's lobbying. Mr. Andrews's firm, Butera & Andrews, collected at least $4 million in fees from the subprime industry from 2002 through 2006, congressional lobbying reports indicate. Mr. Andrews didn't represent Ameriquest directly. He ran three different subprime-industry trade groups: the National Home Equity Mortgage Association, of which Ameriquest was a member; the Coalition for Fair and Affordable Lending, which spent $6.3 million lobbying against state laws before it dissolved earlier this year, according to federal filings; and the Responsible Mortgage Lending Coalition.


In 2003, Lisa Andrews was appointed senior vice president for government affairs at Ameriquest. Her public-relations firm, Washington Communications Group Inc., claims credit on its Web site for coordinating the industry's victory in New Jersey, as well as its overall strategy at the state level. Ms. Andrews left Ameriquest in 2005 and returned to her firm..

Ameriquest was founded by Mr. Arnall in 1979 as Long Beach Savings & Loan. He later shed all of the thrift's operations except its retail-mortgage unit, which he renamed Ameriquest. During the refinancing boom of the 1990s, Ameriquest became a player in the business of lending to low-income homeowners. The company persuaded many homeowners to take cash out of their houses by refinancing them for larger amounts than their existing mortgages. Many of the new loans carried relatively high interest rates.

 

[Liar]

Oh dear - a "C--" on reading comprehension here. From the context it is quite clear that the author is advocating richer-rich people and richer-poor people.

Indeed. But is that probable as an increased-gap scenario? Might be or might not, and I have full understanding of the people who fear it might not.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Indeed. But is that probable as an increased-gap scenario? Might be or might not, and I have full understanding of the people who fear it might not.

I believe it is an increased-gap scenario, which I find to be a fascinating moral mirror. If your real income rises from $35,000 to $38,000, but the rich guy down the street goes for $350,000 to $410,000, are you better off or worse?

The plot thickens when populist politicians propose "taxes on the rich" that will raise the disincentives to investing and risk-taking, and so slow the economy. Lets say this just means that both you and the rich guy have stagnant incomes next year - don't go up or down. Are you better off in the first scenario or the second?

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

O Rourke: In a free society, with the rule of law and property rights, no one loses when someone else gets rich.

Clever and provocative, but not true.

Observation: A retail clerk steals from the till and shortchanges customers to make up the difference.

Conclusion: The world is a worse place because there are retail clerks.

Prescription: The government should take over the job of retail clerking.

Welcome to Pure's world.

 

[Pure]

welcome to roxanne's world

Observation: A retail clerk steals from the till and shortchanges customers to make up the difference.

Conclusion: The world is a worse place because there are retail clerks.

Prescription: The government should take over the job of retail clerking.

Welcome to Pure's world.

here's a typical roxanne "reply" which ignores substance, and invents a strawman. welcome to her world of always being right.

even the WSJ noted the effects of the subprime lenders' lobbying efforts on preventing legislatures from dealing with the problem, i.e. passing laws tightening requirements for lending and correct documentation of properties.

IOW, "I made my money within the law," as articulated by the CEOs of Countrywide [Mozilo] and Ameriquest [Arnall], the latter who became Ambassador to the Netherlands, is NO insurance against widespreads harms; giving the lie to Rourke's claim that one's person's legal gain in wealth never subtracts from anothers.

It might be noted further that Roxanne's concerns of moral harms incurred by 'welfare' recipients does not, apparently, extend to CEOs who make 100 million in the year their company goes belly up.

 

[Pure]

phoney question

rox's and rand's favorite, or 'fair tax' people are all slimy enviers.

I believe it is an increased-gap scenario, which I find to be a fascinating moral mirror. If your real income rises from $35,000 to $38,000, but the rich guy down the street goes for $350,000 to $410,000, are you better off or worse?

The real scene in the US, unlike Rox's fairy tale, goes like this; i reframe the question:

If, as a working person, your real [inflation adjusted] wages decline by 2% while your CEOs salary increases by 50%, are you that much worse off, considering how happy your CEO is, and how much his increased spending is going to benefit the economy?

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Observation: A retail clerk steals from the till and shortchanges customers to make up the difference.

Conclusion: The world is a worse place because there are retail clerks.

Prescription: The government should take over the job of retail clerking.

Welcome to Pure's world.

here's a typical roxanne "reply" which ignores substance, and invents a strawman. welcome to her world of always being right.

even the WSJ noted the effects of the subprime lenders' lobbying efforts on preventing legislatures from dealing with the problem, i.e. passing laws tightening requirements for lending and correct documentation of properties.

Amendment to Pure's world:

Observation: A retail clerk steals from the till and shortchanges customers to make up the difference.

Prescription: The government should take over the job of retail clerking.

Observation No. 2: The retail clerks association lobbies against the takeover.

Conclusion: The world is a worse place because there are retail clerks.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

rox's and rand's favorite, or 'fair tax' people are all slimy enviers.

I believe it is an increased-gap scenario, which I find to be a fascinating moral mirror. If your real income rises from $35,000 to $38,000, but the rich guy down the street goes for $350,000 to $410,000, are you better off or worse?

The real scene in the US, unlike Rox's fairy tale, goes like this; i reframe the question:

If, as a working person, your real [inflation adjusted] wages decline by 2% while your CEOs salary increases by 50%, are you that much worse off, considering how happy your CEO is, and how much his increased spending is going to benefit the economy?

That's an easy question with an obvious and fairly uninteresting answer.

I posed a harder question that raises very interesting moral and psychological issues.

Regarding the assumptions underlying each question I will only make this observation: No one has explained how raising taxes on investment and risk-taking, specifically taxes capital gains and corporate dividends, improves the lot of "the working man." Indeed, no one on the left - such as the prez candidates - has even thought that an answer is needed. That raises interesting psycho-political questions itself.

 

[Pure]

no one

[del]

 

[Pure]

no one

No one has explained how raising taxes on investment and risk-taking, specifically taxes capital gains and corporate dividends, improves the lot of "the working man."

outside of rand land, the answer is, perhaps, so obvious that it's not repeated.

if corporations' and investors' taxes go down [as the right wing tax cutters and rox propose], other things being equal*, the burden on the ordinary tax payer goes up, and in rox's words, 'the working man' is worse off.

if we assume the GWB era is over, and taxes are *raised* on these entities, to a reasonable level--non zero-- then the lot of the 'working man' is improved, as his taxes are lower. since some corps and investors pay ZERO taxes, the question of punishingly high rates that do social harm-- R's real question, poorly stated-- does not arise.

--
*this is to rule out Rox's fantasy and inevitable rejoinder: surely when the rich make more money, they don't buy an additional home in the south of France, rather they invest in a new factory and create a thousand new jobs [not denying that this happens occasionally, of course; at worst, will say roxanne, the rich fellow hires a new maid who's an illegal, letting her improve herself: the poor, unemployed US citizens having been subjected to so many moral hazards they won't word for $8,000/year and room and board.

 

[R. Richard]

No one has explained how raising taxes on investment and risk-taking, specifically taxes capital gains and corporate dividends, improves the lot of "the working man."

outside of rand land, the answer is, perhaps, so obvious that it's not repeated.

if corporations' and investors' taxes go down [as the right wing tax cutters and rox propose], other things being equal, the burden on the ordinary tax payer goes up, and in rox's words, 'the working man' is worse off.

Given level economic times, the lowering of tax RATES almost invariably causes the amount of taxes collected to RISE. This last was true under Kennedy and is true under Bush. People work harder when they are allowed to keep more of the money they earn. In addition, when the 'rich' are allowed to keep more of the money they earn, they use the retained money to either start new businesses and/or expand existing businesses. The expansion of business requires more paid employees. Thus, more of the 'working class' have jobs and their economic lot improves. [The reason why the 'tich' start more businesses is not to help the working class, but to further increase the wealth of the rich. However, the benefits are better than the tax increases that strangle the economy.]

[if then, we assume the GWB era is over, and taxes are *raised* on these entities, to a reasonable level--non zero-- then the lot of the 'working man' is improved, as his taxes are lower. since some corps and investors pay ZERO taxes, the question of punishingly high rates that do social harm-- R's real question, poorly stated-- does not arise.

The raising of taxes on 'the rich' doesn't improve the lot of the 'working class.' The raising of taxes on the rich is used to fund schemes like Hillary's $5,000 for each baby. The raising of taxes on the rich is typical class warefare that harms he 'working class.' Many of the 'working class' currently pay no income taxes at all.

It is not possible to really tax a successful corporation. The corporation produces a product(s) and/or service(s) and sells same for a price calculated to yield a desired return on investment. Any tax on a corporation simply adds to the cost of the corporation's product(s) and/or service(s). The tax is actually paid by the customers of the corporation, the 'working class.' [Welcome to the world of economic reality!]

It is damn near impossible for an invesor to pay ZERO taxes. The shining example of those who did pay zero income taxes were oil people, who used the depletion allowance to zero their personal taxes. However, the oil people had to hire workers, buy equipment and pay for transportation of their product(s). Thus, they did pay taxes, indirectly.

Now then, let's address the burden of the 'working class.' The biggest rip off of the working class is Social Security. The working class pay into SS for all of their working lives and get a miserable little return, so that the politicians can spend SS money for bridges to nowhere. In addition, if the working man is black, he typically doesn't live long enough to collect SS. 'Course, nobody care 'bout black men, 'cause ever'body know they lazy and no good and getting ripped of by SS is jus' what they got comin'.

 

[Liar]

I believe it is an increased-gap scenario, which I find to be a fascinating moral mirror. If your real income rises from $35,000 to $38,000, but the rich guy down the street goes for $350,000 to $410,000, are you better off or worse?

Depends. What does the guy down the street do to the goods-and-service prices and the mortage market?

 

[Liar]

if corporations' and investors' taxes go down [as the right wing tax cutters and rox propose], other things being equal*, the burden on the ordinary tax payer goes up, and in rox's words, 'the working man' is worse off.

This is true, of course, if the tax cuts for corporations doesn't contribute to a growth in the national economy greater than the tax cuts.

It's a gamble. Some like the odds, others not.

 

[Liar]

Yeah i'm a fence-sitter. I like it up here.

 

[Pure]

R richard

It is damn near impossible for an invesor to pay ZERO taxes. The shining example of those who did pay zero income taxes were oil people, who used the depletion allowance to zero their personal taxes. However, the oil people had to hire workers, buy equipment and pay for transportation of their product(s). Thus, they did pay taxes, indirectly.

that was big of them. now if there's no tax on the oil investers, and mony is needed for some public purpose, then a heavier tax falls on the others in the publich, correct?

Given level economic times, the lowering of tax RATES almost invariably causes the amount of taxes collected to RISE. this little nostrum, is sometimes true. but we know that, under GWB, as under Reagan, the hoped for rise in total revenue did NOT materialize, hence they BORROWED-- sold bonds to the Chines, e.g.,--to the hilt.

had the nostrum been true, such borrowing would not be needed.

but to return to the point of mr o rourke, argubaly the gains of the oil investers WERE at some others' expense. had they paid the slightest amt, say 5% on their gains, the burden on others would have been reduced. [and their incentive would have been unaffected]

 

[S-Des]

but we know that, under GWB, as under Reagan, the hoped for rise in total revenue did NOT materialize, hence they BORROWED-- sold bonds to the Chines, e.g.,--to the hilt.

No, that's completely untrue. There was a huge rise in the amount of taxes collected...how do you not know this? The problem is that spending went up (outside of the war costs, which are staggering on their own). On top of that, our costs for existing programs (especially SS & Medicare) continued to rise too fast. Politicians using 'Earmarks' to add to the deficit continued to hit new levels of corruption as well (this year shows the trend is escalating, despite the attention the issue has received).

If you'd like to argue that the tax rate on "the rich" (such a stupid phrase to begin with) should be raised enough to earn more money, but hopefully not enough to stall out an already sluggish economy, it's a fair argument...but a complete gamble (as Liar said). Mark Cuban put it perfectly during an appearance on Politically Incorrect. "Corporations don't give a shit about the workers. If you raise their taxes, they'll pass the cost on to the consumers and lay off employees. You can't tax them, it's a waste of time."

As Charlie Rose pointed out in the last Democratic debate, every time in recent history (since JFK) that the Capital Gains tax has been reduced, tax revenues have risen. Maybe Bush has lowered it too much, maybe not. That's an argument that can be made, but only if people are going to stipulate to reality.