When is humor no longer funny?

[kandrathe]

If this is true (and the fact that the wealthiest, despite being able to "choose their level of income", pay the lion's share of taxes seems to indicate that it is not), then what needs to happen is that the wealthiest need to be taxed both harder and smarter, and that the middle class needs more tax relief.

Would you then advocate the government seizing assets as well as unfairly siphoning off a persons source of wealth? As an example, Warren Buffet's annual salary from BH is a mere $100k. He chose to earn another mere $46M from his $52B portfolio. If you figure the average growth rate of the $52B at even a lowly 10%(avg yearly growth of BH is more like 20%), then Mr. Buffet selected to earn and pay taxes on 8.8% of the growth of his wealth. He didn't need to earn it.

The Bush tax cuts, despite your claims to the contrary, seem to be aimed first and foremost at "liberating" the very wealthy from giving any more of their historically-unprecedented levels of wealth towards an increasingly bankrupt government's debts and necessary expenses, even leaving aside all the things you disparage so much.

I believe that the price of the meal (i.e. government services) should be the same for everyone who can pay for them. For those who are infirm, (too young, too old, too sick, etc.) exemptions should be made and their burden should be shared equally. A fair system treats everyone equally. As much as we admire Robin Hood, we all know that beyond all the good intentions he was a bandit. What we have done in our government is legitimize banditry. Let's go back to the allegory of the 10 men sharing the $100 meal; Would you ever agree to such an arrangement in splitting the bill? I wouldn't. In reality, when you can't pay you eat less or go without. I have empathy for the poor, just as I have empathy for the victim of robbery (even when it is dressed up by my government and called "taxes"). Other than the last years most unusual and wrong minded cases of excessive corporate welfare, I don't see much use of tax money for helping wealthy people. Maybe in your belief system it is the duty of those with wealth to write a blank check to the government? From 1936 to 1963 the top tax rate was between 80 to 92%. Does that seem fair?

... all of which could be dealt with, in terms of the middle class, by a simple system of exemptions, either by setting up lifetime thresholds below which you do not pay capital gains taxes, or with retirement-and-education oriented investment accounts that are immune from taxation, provided the proceeds are used for their intended purpose. Lowering capital gains taxes (overwhelmingly benefiting the richest, in more-than-proportion to their riches) to eliminate those problems seems to be solving a paper cut with a lobotomy.

I like your notion of exemptions for certain classes of "savings". It would be nice to be able to tuck money away for paying for ones own health care, educating ones children, and ones own retirement (for use after I'm 65 or 70 even). I think the government should encourage personal savings accounts for those who can afford them, and reserve the entitlement programs (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid) for those who cannot.

Yes, because your economy has been growing (this last year aside, when tax revenues have stagnated). Tax revenues should always increase, given perfectly ordinary levels of economic growth, even in the face of tax cuts. The question is how much of that growth is due to the tax cuts, and how much of that makes it back into the pockets of the government. The answer to that question is almost certainly "not nearly as much as if they hadn't cut taxes".

Revenue growth is still well above the growth rate of GDP and inflation.(see the other charts from my last post).

New spending including an extraordinarily expensive war that you supported?

Just to be very clear. I was fine (not against, not eager) with kicking Saddam's butt (e.g. regime change) for his crimes and violations of the armistice, against the UN, and against his own people. This was also the position of former President Clinton. I wasn't supportive of attempting to build a democracy in Baghdad, although I can see that in some neocon fable it would be a strategic advantage to have a friendly democracy where Saddam's Iraq used to be. And, then someday, we also know that pigs will fly and shoot JDAM's from their posteriors at insurgent terrorists. The war was over in my mind once Saddam and his ilk were either killed, or captured. It has been the "nation building" that has been costly, and the billions wasted mostly going to friends of the neocons.

Government is the only tool available for delivering a major economic stimulus. (You could try your plan for small business loans, but even that would require colossal government spending, at least in the short term.) The alternative to such a stimulus is the risk of a new great depression. Who knows, that may happen anyway. But this is not just some crazy socialist fear mongering. It appears to be the consensus position of pretty much every mainstream economist on the planet, although the devil, as always, is in the details.

I'm not sure that government is the answer. The Keynesian view is that all depressions and recessions are due to government interventions in the economy. I've also heard that the Great Depression was deeper and longer due to failed government attempts at fixing the problem.

From my old economics textbook, "In particular, government efforts to manipulate the interest rate causes a boom and bust cycle because people over-invest ("malinvestment") when interest rates are low and when interest rates are raised to stave off the inevitable inflation, a bust is caused due to the mismatching of consumer and business goods." I would add that perhaps this depression was initiated by governments poor performance with the pseudo government agencies Fannie and Freddie. And, as Mr. Buffet would say, those financial weapons of mass destruction, derivatives and namely guaranteed investment contracts.