Why, Oh Why, Can't We Have A Better Press Corp? David Brooks NPR Edition

[elfs]

On Friday's NPR, David Brooks tried to dismiss Occupy Wall Street, saying:

Yeah, there's a broad swath of anger at Wall Street. There's a broad swath of anger at concentrated power. There's obviously pessimism across the country. I don't think the Occupy Wall Street, or the Tea Party for that matter, represents Main Street America. My estimate is that the Tea Party is 11% of America. Occupy Wall Street is maybe 2% in what they actually want to do. ... Every survey I've seen of the group suggests its a left-wing group, significantly to the left of the Democratic Party. When Ralph Nader ran, he got 2% of the vote, so there are people with a fundamental critique of capitalism. I don't think it represents 90% of the country.

So there you have it. The official message from one of the New York Times' most popular pundits is that OWS is just the Damn Commies again, offering only "a radical critique of capitalism." They're as important to your consciousness as Ralph Nader voters. Feel free to ignore them.

Jesus fucking Frigga, how often do we have to explain it to people: When you work with your hands to create great products and deliver great services, you are taxed at double the rate of those with money who use money to make money. This is unreasonable, and has to change. And The revolving doors between Wall Street and the Government have led to a collaborative relationship among the powerful that has divorced those who lead us from any concern for the fabric of America as a whole. This has to change.

These are not "critique of capitalism." They're critiques of a solidifying plutocracy. But, since Brooks is easily within The 1%, I guess he has to make sure we all follow along with The Official Line.

Comments

[edichka2.livejournal.com]

I don't think Brooks thinks they're commies; he just thinks they're juvenile and fringe. Brooks isn't really a hostile guy. I tends to significantly misunderstand the liberal perspective, however, perhaps intentionally, in order to reinforce the dichotomy he postulates.
- E

[edichka2.livejournal.com]

"He tends" rather than "I tends".

Some questions

[ideaphile.livejournal.com]

What tax rates are "reasonable" for labor wages, inheritances, returns on investments, and other sources of income?

What is the moral basis of these rates?

. png

[tagryn]

Yeah, its fairly obvious when Brooks thinks a person or group isn't worth taking seriously; right now, that includes OWS, the Tea Party, and Herman Cain. He's a moderate conservative who's not big into rocking the boat, much less sinking it.

He's probably right about OWS, though. It gradually seems to be evolving from a protest into groups of semi-autonomous communes, which is OK but probably not anything that's a game-changer. We'll see whether the movement survives the Northeast winter.

Re: Some questions

[elfs.livejournal.com]

The answer is not zero.

The answer is not "flat."

I am not equipped to actually determine and set tax rates, as I am neither a fully-equipped political scientist or an economist.

There's a story, apparently true, about how Larry Summers confronted a young woman on the street bearing the sign We Need A New System, where Summers gleefully recounted,

So I asked the girl: 'What is this new system that you want? Tell me about it!' And the girl had nothing. Nothing! She had no fucking clue what this magical new system was supposed to be. No one is saying that there aren't problems with the world economy the way it is today. But these kids out there -- they don't know what they want!

To which Ari Rabin-Havt angrily replied, apparently to Summer's face, bless him:

You've got 50 economics PhDs in this room who pretty much run the world economy. And you're asking that girl for a better system? Aren't the solutions your job? You admit billions are living in hell, but it's up to that girl to fix it?

Right now, the point is not to have solutions, but to hear the solutions proposed by those in power. What most of America wants to hear right now is something other than "the powerful get more power, the rest of us get trickled-down upon."

Compulsively adhering to some obligate ideology that forbids any political action because it can't explain its moral position to a zillion decimal places is a brilliant way to self disempower. Morals are foundationally emotional; all human behavior is founded in desire, nothing more.

Re: Some questions

[ideaphile.livejournal.com]

I didn't ask for "a zillion decimal places," but so far, I've only got two binary bits, which isn't enough to understand what you really want.

Obviously I'm not really asking you to define a whole new tax code in full detail. In effect I'm just asking you what you mean by "reasonable" because you used the term "unreasonable." If you have no idea what you mean, fine, but I think you probably do, and I'd like to hear it.

You say you want "to hear the solutions proposed by those in power." Against what standard will you judge these proposals? If you can't define your standard, why on Earth would anyone bother making a proposal?

Just give us whatever level of detail you're sure of. You seem to have rejected regressive, flat, and zero taxes, so I conclude you want a progressive tax structure. Why? What is the moral basis for saying this is "reasonable"? For example, you might assert that high-income taxpayers receive a disproportionately large benefit from society. On the other hand, someone else might say that it's low-income taxpayers who are the disproportionate consumers of government services. Or you might say that high-income taxpayers must pay more taxes simply because they can. But that isn't a moral argument, is it?

So come on, just give us something. Anything. This is NOT someone else's problem. It's your problem.

. png

Re: Some questions

[damiana-swan.livejournal.com]

A progressive tax structure makes sense because those at the top of the financial pyramid--and corporations are very much included--utilize (and create wear & tear) on the infrastructure funded by taxpayers at a significantly higher rate than the average member of the 99%. They use, and profit from, the natural (and other) resources owned by the taxpayers, at a very significantly higher rate than individual members of the 99%.

A very large chunk of the 1%--and I'm including corporations--make their money from sources that either involve making money from money rather than from creating an actual product or service, OR from selling resources they glean from public lands which they pay a ridiculously low leasing fee for, OR from utilizing other public resources (such as the airwaves) in a manner which is entirely irresponsible and often damaging to the public interest, and entirely focused on their own interests.

The solution is tighter regulations, enforcement, and a fair, enforced tax structure.

Re: Some questions

[ideaphile.livejournal.com]

Okay, at least we're making some progress here. You have provided a reasonably clear statement of a theory of taxation that is commonly offered by progressives to justify a progressive tax structure.

Now, let's think about that theory some more. Is it really true that high-income taxpayers "utilize (and create wear & tear) on the infrastructure funded by taxpayers at a significantly higher rate" than others? And by this, I assume you mean that they do so out of proportion to their actual tax rates; please let me know if this assumption is incorrect.

It's certainly true that high-income taxpayers are associated with more economic activity than lower-income taxpayers. I would argue, however, that much of this activity is separately taxed-- by property taxes, fuel taxes, vehicle registration fees, corporate income taxes, and so on-- and that whatever's left over may not actually amount to a lower effective cost for utiliization and wear and tear for high-income taxpayers than for others.

Remember that the average (mean or median, your choice) member of the 1% really does pay far more in taxes than the average member of the 99%. The ratio is somewhere around 20:1. (I can't find definite recent figures, so I must acknowledge that this figure may be significantly in error.)

I really can't see any way that the average 1%-er is using (or using up) taxpayer-funded infrastructure at anything close to a 20:1 ratio. If you go into the offices where most government spending takes place, I think you will find that well over 84% of all the spending is entirely unrelated to members of the 1%. By and large, the very wealthy simply don't do much with or get much from the government.

On the contrary, I think it's pretty clear that the fundamental basis of the current tax code is that these people can afford to pay more taxes, and the majority of voters are willing to invoke the deadly force of government to take this money from them.

Is that reasonable? Is that fair? I know many people believe it is. But I think they believe that merely because it's expedient and socially acceptable for them to take that position. It isn't fair by any rational standard I have ever heard.

As for your second paragraph-- perhaps you don't understand that the only way for investments to yield returns, generally speaking, is if the investments are used to create profitable businesses. So "making money from money" is, in practical fact, logically equivalent to "creating an actual product or service."

You may find it difficult to understand how this applies to financial service companies, and indeed, it isn't easy to find the connection, but you must understand that these companies generally can't compel anyone to use their services. They make money only by helping their customers to make money. (The exceptions, of course, revolve almost exclusively around government mandates, and I am certainly no fan of those.)

Your references to public resources take the form of definite conclusions, not arguments, so I don't really know how to respond to those. I can only assure you that most companies that use public resources are not unusually profitable, and many of them in fact lose money, so perhaps it isn't as easy for these companies to make a profit as you seem to think. But to whatever extent there are businesses that take value from public resources without appropriately compensating the public, I also find this sort of thing unacceptable and support effective reforms.

. png

[http://users.livejournal.com/_candide_/]

Frankly, I find it astounding that so many small business owners still buy into all of these "tax cuts" that get touted as pro-business. Haven't they noticed, after 30 years, that none of those tax cuts ever benefited them?

I've seen too many friends who run a small business get whacked upside the head with laws that were originally created to keep the large corporations in line, laws that are NEVER enforced on those large corporations. I have farmer friends who can't profit from their labor because … well, here, this one takes some explaining:
I have friends who own an apple orchard. Many of the apples aren't "pretty," because they grow them organically. Except, they can't say that they grow them organically, because it would cost them $25k+ to get accredited for that. And even if they had that kind of money, the "certified organic" label is near-worthless, since the agribusiness lobbyists watered down the law establishing what counts as "organic."

So, they have a pile of apples that nobody will buy, just because of looks. What are they to do with the ugly apples? They could make applesauce and can it, the old fashioned way. Except they can't sell it, not without paying $10k+ to get licensed to make and can produce.
$25k to get a license for "certified organic," $10k+ to get a license to sell self-canned applesauce … these are not regulations designed to keep food safe. They're designed to create a barrier-to-entry for mom-n-pop establishments.

"Regulation" is not the problem; selective application of regulation, to the benefit of the Plutocrats and Corporations is. Regulations that only benefit the Plutocrats and Corporations is.

I keep saying it, over and over: OWS is not against capitalism! If anything, they're protesting that we no longer have functioning capitalism, but runaway Corporatism.