My last post, "Governor Socialist," (scroll down or click here) garnered a comment that I think is worth further discussion, and for the convenience of my 10 or 15 regular readers, I'll paste the comment here so no one has to click around:
Comparing the sharing of the oil revenues in Alaska with Obama's plan to take money from some and redistribute it to others is either convenient or dumb. Take your pick.
In Alaska the oil companies pay for the use of the land based on production that money is the used to fund the states financial requirements. Any excess is returned to the citizens of the state as required by law.
Barack Obama's stated goal is to redistribute the wealth. He feels it is only fair to take money from the "haves" and give it to the "have nots". I believe that is welfare. I believe we have an obligation to help those less fortunate, but history has shown that just giving the poor money kills incentive to improve. Taking the money and educating or training these people allows them to become productive and support themselves.
Anonymous Commenter:
I don't think the comparison is convenient or dumb, mostly because I wasn't making a comparison, and I don't believe the writer at the New Yorker was either. I think on the socialism issue, Governor Palin is talking out of both sides of her mouth - at the same time she's slamming Barack Obama for being in favor of the progressive taxation system we have in this country, equating it to socialism, she's espousing the virtues of Alaska's unique set-up, in which the state and the citizenry are benefiting from the collective ownership of a form of wealth, in this case revenues from oil resources. Here's what the Governor said, in her own words: “...we’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs.” That sounds an awful lot like a form of socialism, and it's one that Alaskans are fortunate to benefit from, because due to this sharing of the wealth, they don't have to pay income or sales taxes. So I think it's intellectually dishonest for her to embrace one form of socialism while accusing Senator Obama of being a socialist for supporting progressive taxation, and using that system of taxation to ask people who can afford to pay a little more in taxes to do so, while at the same time giving a break to people who are working and paying taxes. People who have income so low that they don't pay taxes aren't going to get a break, because you can't pay less than zero.
I don't know enough to argue whether or not progressive taxation is a socialist idea, but if it is, we've had a socialist government since 1913, when the federal income tax was enacted, and therefore, every president since then has been a "redistributionist in chief," including Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, both of whom raised taxes while in office. Leaving aside her embrace of "Alaskan Sharing the Wealth" (for lack of a better term, since "Alaskan Socialism" seems unnecessarily inflammatory), if Governor Palin is anti-socialist, and thinks progressive taxation is socialistic, then she ought to explicitly come out against our tax system and explain what she's in favor of. No taxes? A flat tax? A consumption tax? If she has a position on this, I think Americans are entitled to hear it. Otherwise, I believe it exposes her argument, and the argument of the McCain campaign in the final week of the presidential campaign, as bogus.
That's my two cents.
-EB
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
In response to your response. The benefit that Alaskans derive from the production of oil is not socialism. Socialism preaches the government ownership of all means of production and the distribution of the profits from them spread to the prople. This sounds good but ubfortunately no soicialist government has ever been able to run any part of their society profitably.
In Alaska the government does not own the oil production but does own the land and is sharing the income the leases provide with their citizens who are the actuyal land owners.
There is a clear delineation between taking from those who have means and those that either do not, will not or can not do for themselves. You do not bring people up by pulling others down. Sharing the wealth of a state owned lease to the constituents of that state can not be defined as socialist but rather a sharing of an investment. Taking from my family if we were to make over 150K (has been revised since the initial proclamation of 250K) is socialist. At the heart of a socialist doctrine would be that the people under a socialist rule are not people but property of the Government and all that they create and earn are thus property of the Government and can do with what the Government wants to. This is precisely what are founding fathers and initial settlers were fleeing from and at the heart of our country I believe if this is there direction we go to there will be a revolution of some kind. In a Socialist society slavery is reenacted as we are all then property of the Government and work and contribute for the benefit of the government.
Anonymous - I freely admit to not being an expert on socialism (which I think I admitted to in the Comment on a Comment post), so perhaps I was wrong on Alaska. (I also think most people are not experts, or really even have more than a passing idea of what socialism is, and that includes most of the people that are shouting "socialist" at the mention of Barack Obama's name. Either way, there's no excuse for ignorance, on the part of those people or me.)
RayRay - I think we have fundamentally different views on the role of government and taxes. I really don't believe that Obama is a closet socialist, or that he has a secret agenda for creating a socialist society where we are all property of the government - because if that was his true aim, I agree with you, we'd have a revolution in this country. Regarding Obama's tax plan, I just checked his site, and he's still pledging to not raise taxes on families making less than $250k.
What I'm really curious to know, though, is whether or not you think progressive taxation is socialistic - I can tell you think that it's not exactly fair, and I would love to know what you do think is fair when it comes to taxes, because I think we can all agree, no matter what your political preferences are, that the tax system is in need of reform.
Thanks for your comments -
EB
Although the website still says 250k, we have had 2 different versions in speeches; Obama brought it down in 1 speech to 200K and Biden down to 150K earlier in the week. That being said onto your question concerning taxation. You are correct when you state that the current system is in need of reform. There are few plausible solutions that I know of that would feel "right" to me. So I come to this point in a rather backwards way. What would the American populist say if we have always received our full pay check? You make 50K a year; you bring home 50K a year. It costs you 15K for a new car; you pay 15K for the new car. This is how it has always been, your parents lived under a system of what you earned is what you take home, their parents the same. Schools are still funded; there are grants for education, research. Currency is still being printed and government is still ticking on. Social services are how they currently are. There is help for the homeless, Dept of Children welfare is around, Military as it is. And so on... Then one day a group of folks in the government want you vote on a referendum where by the goods and services you currently purchase will cost the same, but now depending on your income you will send anywhere from 15% to 37% to the government. How would America vote on this idea? I think they would overwhelmingly vote no. So how do we return to a system that is as idyllic as the one previously described. The Fair Tax. Your cost of goods will remain the same, what you earn you will bring home. Tax revenues will actually increase because now the segment of our society that does not pay tax due to the legality of their dealings will be forced to because they purchase goods and services. There are a lot of people that say this will not work or it will raise what we pay for goods and services. Not the case. If it cost $3 for milk under the fair tax it will still cost $3. Why is this? Because the imbedded taxes that companies pay to the government then transfer to you will be removed, so the 23% they pay in taxes for production goes away, to stay competitive they have to drop their price the 23% which keeps them margin whole, then the government on the sale of the milk charges 23% sales tax. Your price remains the same. But now the government captures revenue from a single stream. Everyone buys, drug dealers, teachers, priests, prostitutes, illegal immigrants. Everyone. No more income tax returns, no more IRS... etc. The problem most people have with the philosophy of the fair tax is is that it takes power away from government and puts it back in the hands of the people. So what would you do if for your whole life, what you earned you took home, complete and full paycheck. What costs you $5.00 is just $5.00. Now they want you to earn 50K but you can only have $38,500 to live off of and what cost you $5 previously still costs you $5.00. What do you want to do? Stay the way it is where you keep all that you earn or would you like to make a donation of 33% of your salary and not see anything different come from it? Everything the government now does, it can do under the fair tax. Although they really do need to learn how to live under a budget and not spend what they do not have. So there is my piece, what think you and your readers???
Certainly food for thought. I think the consumption tax is interesting idea, but my concern with it is that it's inherently regressive, in that a much larger portion of the income of a family earning $50k a year goes to paying that 23% tax on goods and services, while a family earning twice that amount is is paying a smaller portion, and a family earning $250k (which seems to be the line in the sand this election year) pays even less. So on one hand, it's fair, but on the other it's not, because it's much more burdensome to the family with lower income. I heard an interview with Saxby Chambliss, who I'm sure you know advocates the 23% consumption tax, and he seems to recognize that it's regressive (although he won't call it that), and offers a monthly refund check to cover the amount of tax paid to head of households determined by income level. I suppose if there were a progressive way to level that playing field for all people in different income brackets, I'd say it's certainly worth a look - heck, I think we need to look at all sorts of options - but I wonder if by offering a refund, if that doesn't open the door to all sorts of loopholes and shenanigans, and if it prevents the elimination of the IRS, since some kind of government tax agency would be needed to monitor all this stuff. Anyway, the Saxby interview is here, and the fair tax portion of the discussion comes in around the sixteen minute mark: http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/wabe/news.newsmain?action=article&ARTICLE_ID=1399812§ionID=418
Also, the New York times had an interesting article on the McCain and Obama tax plans, as analyzed by the non-partisan Tax Policy Center and accounting firm Deloitte. Worth a read: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/31/us/politics/31taxes.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
-EB
Post a Comment