"You make more money so you pay more taxes, but you also benefit more from society..."
How does he benefit more from society? He's got more expendable income and a more secure retirement, but is it society providing these things?
"You pay more taxes but are less dependant on services the government provides."
I...what? He pays more for the privelege of needing less? He's charged more money to cover the fact that he doesn't use as much? I honestly have no idea how to interpret your statement as a positive thing.
"It’s incorrect because you are trying to make a single person’s experience a metaphor for how an entire economy can work."
So individual experiences can't be generalized to the entirety of society?
That's great, but it means that you can't point to a bum on the street and say "this person's poverty means that the system is a failure, no matter how good life is for the average citizen!"
"Here it is, Anno Domini 2011 and I scratch my grey beard, watching the minivans full of homeless people pulling up into the Walmart parking lot after a foraging expedition in the Arby’s dumpster. I never saw that in the 1950s."
That's because, in the 1950s, those people would be dead. Society was not so rich that the food Arby's threw in the dumpster could sustain a minivan full of homeless people.
A search for "business jet ownership" shows that company business jets are going away.
And when you say stuff like "Often the company just buys those tickets to start with, and hence no one is ‘reimbursed’ either" I have to conclude that, in true Republican tradition, you don't know what you're talking about but you've invested a lot of emotion in a worldview based on stereotype and hearsay.
No; I'm suggesting that "the unions are the only thing that saved me from ruin" overstates the case.
I mean, if you want to interpret that as "Erik's employers should have fired him"--actually, no, you can't interpret it that way. You can interpret it as "if Erik's employers had fired him then he would have had options."
Walker exempted police and firefighters because he didn't want them to go on strike. Cops going on strike is not a thing that makes anyone except criminals happy.
"Just letting the CEO or owners jet around on ‘company business’ that is one ‘business related’ lunch in Paris and then a three-day stay is _not_ taxed."
Expense reimbursements are reported as income on your W-2, and you pay taxes on them. Now, it's usually tax-adjusted by the company so that you aren't out-of-pocket on the expense (otherwise why bother reimbursing you?) but it does increase your effective income.
As for the private jet, the company pays property taxes and registration fees on that, plus fuel taxes and operations fees if they actually want to use it.
"...companies often hire _personal_ assistants for executives."
...doesn't everyone at a company work for the CEO? Shouldn't your reasoning therefore conclude that every person's salary should be considered part of the CEO's compensation?
"And capital gains are not _taxed_ as standard income, they are taxed at 15%."
So they are taxed, then. Your contention was that they were not.
I think there's a useful parallel to DADT. DADT wasn't "struck down by court action". It was repealed by a legislative act. Which is how the system is supposed to work.
"Despite the caliber of my work, I am not a unique, irreplaceable asset; my employer would have been perfectly justified in jettisoning me to the curb, just to placate a politically connected individual who was making their jobs more difficult than they already were."
And that's the point where you file a libel suit against the vendor in question, whose provably-false statements caused you significant professional injury.
"[M]ost bargaining occurs between management representatives and union chapter representatives – both made up of career civil servants. "
I think that this is the first time I've ever heard someone argue that allowing an entrenched unelected bureaucracy to do all the actual governing is a good thing.
He's not saying "the rich done got it tough". He's saying "when you talk about how we should raise taxes so the rich pay their fair share, you need to start out with knowledge of the share they already pay."
If nothing else, it avoids the embarassment of suggesting a "fair share" that's less than they pay now, which I've seen happen.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “The Middle Class Isn’t Dying”
Why are you even still posting here? Why aren't you just staying in your nice little echo chamber at Balloon Juice?
"
I feel like there should be gangsta rap playing in the background of this exchange.
"
Jesse: Provide numbers to back up your contention.
"
"Let me introduce you to the world of consulting. I don’t have to sell anything to be productive."
...so, uh, how does that show that productivity is a problem?
"
So income levels are inappropriate to define class but we should bitch about them anyway? :rolleyes:
"
"You make more money so you pay more taxes, but you also benefit more from society..."
How does he benefit more from society? He's got more expendable income and a more secure retirement, but is it society providing these things?
"You pay more taxes but are less dependant on services the government provides."
I...what? He pays more for the privelege of needing less? He's charged more money to cover the fact that he doesn't use as much? I honestly have no idea how to interpret your statement as a positive thing.
"
Or take a boring low-paying job so you can live near your parents and let them babysit, instead of moving across country to get an awesome job.
"
But you're ducking the question of whether it's appropriate to define middle class by relative income levels.
Which, if you'll recall, IS WHAT THE GODDAMN TOP POST IS ABOUT.
"
I can't help but wonder if the Democrat's thoroughly-negative caricature of Republicans is based on what they'd do if they were rich.
"
So you watch TV. You just don't watch it on a TV.
It's amusing to see that our society has become so wealthy that we can, once again, watch TV for free.
"
"It’s incorrect because you are trying to make a single person’s experience a metaphor for how an entire economy can work."
So individual experiences can't be generalized to the entirety of society?
That's great, but it means that you can't point to a bum on the street and say "this person's poverty means that the system is a failure, no matter how good life is for the average citizen!"
"
"You don’t know what it’s like to be poor in any era."
So you're honestly saying that you'd rather be poor in 1600 than poor in 2011?
You honestly believe that you can say something like that and expect us to take you seriously?
"This isn’t about whether the poor have advanced..."
Did you read the blog post that started this all?
"
Jaybird, I can't believe you even bothered to answer that one.
"
"Here it is, Anno Domini 2011 and I scratch my grey beard, watching the minivans full of homeless people pulling up into the Walmart parking lot after a foraging expedition in the Arby’s dumpster. I never saw that in the 1950s."
That's because, in the 1950s, those people would be dead. Society was not so rich that the food Arby's threw in the dumpster could sustain a minivan full of homeless people.
"
I think you and Bo are skirting James's primary point by focusing on simple income rather than standard of living.
"
But rich people have more money! Don't you understand? RICH PEOPLE HAVE MORE MONEY. RICH. PEOPLE. HAVE. MORE. MONEY.
I mean, that's the only argument we need to make to PROVE that things are awful now! PEOPLE! RICH! MONEY! MORE!
On “The Death and Life of the Great American Middle Class”
A search for "business jet ownership" shows that company business jets are going away.
And when you say stuff like "Often the company just buys those tickets to start with, and hence no one is ‘reimbursed’ either" I have to conclude that, in true Republican tradition, you don't know what you're talking about but you've invested a lot of emotion in a worldview based on stereotype and hearsay.
On “Labor Roundtable: Erik Vanderhoff”
What are you doing reading a libertarian blog if you don't believe in the ability of the tort system to resolve disputes?
"
No; I'm suggesting that "the unions are the only thing that saved me from ruin" overstates the case.
I mean, if you want to interpret that as "Erik's employers should have fired him"--actually, no, you can't interpret it that way. You can interpret it as "if Erik's employers had fired him then he would have had options."
On “The Death and Life of the Great American Middle Class”
Walker exempted police and firefighters because he didn't want them to go on strike. Cops going on strike is not a thing that makes anyone except criminals happy.
"
"Just letting the CEO or owners jet around on ‘company business’ that is one ‘business related’ lunch in Paris and then a three-day stay is _not_ taxed."
Expense reimbursements are reported as income on your W-2, and you pay taxes on them. Now, it's usually tax-adjusted by the company so that you aren't out-of-pocket on the expense (otherwise why bother reimbursing you?) but it does increase your effective income.
As for the private jet, the company pays property taxes and registration fees on that, plus fuel taxes and operations fees if they actually want to use it.
"...companies often hire _personal_ assistants for executives."
...doesn't everyone at a company work for the CEO? Shouldn't your reasoning therefore conclude that every person's salary should be considered part of the CEO's compensation?
"And capital gains are not _taxed_ as standard income, they are taxed at 15%."
So they are taxed, then. Your contention was that they were not.
On “The Non-Defense of DOMA”
I think there's a useful parallel to DADT. DADT wasn't "struck down by court action". It was repealed by a legislative act. Which is how the system is supposed to work.
On “Labor Roundtable: Erik Vanderhoff”
"Despite the caliber of my work, I am not a unique, irreplaceable asset; my employer would have been perfectly justified in jettisoning me to the curb, just to placate a politically connected individual who was making their jobs more difficult than they already were."
And that's the point where you file a libel suit against the vendor in question, whose provably-false statements caused you significant professional injury.
"[M]ost bargaining occurs between management representatives and union chapter representatives – both made up of career civil servants. "
I think that this is the first time I've ever heard someone argue that allowing an entrenched unelected bureaucracy to do all the actual governing is a good thing.
On “The Death and Life of the Great American Middle Class”
"The elderly vote, but are otherwise impotent."
Unless they vote for free Viagra. (bah-DOOMP!)
"
He's not saying "the rich done got it tough". He's saying "when you talk about how we should raise taxes so the rich pay their fair share, you need to start out with knowledge of the share they already pay."
If nothing else, it avoids the embarassment of suggesting a "fair share" that's less than they pay now, which I've seen happen.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.