State Of The Union

[DuncanONeil]

As for the comment "all of the prosperity without big government, without punishing the rich baffling progressives", this reads like a party line. Progressives don't set out to punish the rich, they see government as a provider of services, and set out to adequately provide and pay for those services. This requires the raising of revenues (through various forms of taxation).

Must disagree! The whole point of a "progressive" tax is to punish the "rich". Progressives do not see Government as a "provider of services". They see Government as a provider. The entire intent of the "Progressive" movement is shown by;
"1. To change other people by having them adopt the Progressive vision of middle class
behavior and thought...this particularly applied to issues of recreation and leisure, the
status of the family, sexual orientation and behavior. Progressives sought to revive a
sense of Victorian family and social values early in the twentieth-century

2. To end class conflict between the "have's"(the privileged class) and "the have less," (or
have not)

3. To effect a measure of control over big business

4. To segregate society into groups, based on occupation (labor, management,etc) race,
sex (laws protecting women insured secondary status in employment), and immigration
status. Segregation of the races was seen by Progressives as a method of stabilizing
race relations.
Four Main Goals of the Progressive Movement are-
1.Protecting Social Welfare.
2.Fostering Efficiencey.
3.Moral Improvement.
4.Economic Reform.
(Answers.com)
Progressives differed in their assessment of the problems and how to resolve them, they generally shared in common the view that government at every level must be actively involved in these reforms. The existing constitutional system was outdated and must be made into a dynamic, evolving instrument of social change, aided by scientific knowledge and the development of administrative bureaucracy. Presidential leadership would provide the unity of direction--the vision--needed for true progressive government. "All that progressives ask or desire," wrote Woodrow Wilson, "is permission--in an era when development, evolution, is a scientific word--to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle; all they ask is recognition of the fact that a nation is a living thing and not a machine." The Progressive Revolution in Politics and Political Science, (shows that Progressivism (seeks to) transform American politics. What was that transformation? It was a total rejection in theory, and a partial rejection in practice, of the principles and policies on which America had been founded and on the basis of which the Civil War had been fought and won only a few years earlier. When I speak of Progressivism, I mean the movement that rose to prominence between about 1880 and 1920.
(The Progressive Movement and the Transformation of American Politics by Thomas G. West and William A. Schambra)"

Furthermore, the entire postwar prosperity period 1946-1973 was defined by some of the highest income taxes in US history. If those tax levels were actually causing people to avoid investing the GDP growth seen over this period would not be occurring.

While various economic indicators show the Reagan administration did well in the short term, this was at the cost of a dramatic debt increase. US Debt as a percentage of GDP declined under all presidents after 1950 before Reagan. Under Reagan (and all presidents since) it has increased as a percentage of GDP. To put this in perspective, when Reagan came into power the US national debt was $930 Billion and was $2.6 trillion at the end of 1988. In addition, the national deficit was staggering.

Its not staggering now? With projections to continue to grow! The numbers you cite are largely correct. Yet the deficit in 1989, though a large number was somewhat of an insignificant increase. The 1980 deficit was 2.65% of GDP and 1989 was 2.78%. The GDP grew from some five trillion to just over seven trillion

You seem to be phrasing the debate as an argument between communism and capitalism, when in fact it is an argument between different types of capitalism. I argue for a capitalist system that more closely resembles the post-war boom policies of the government, while you argue for a capitalist system like that of the Reagan and post-Reagan period.

Your argument seems to more closely approximate the "Progressive" system of Wilson. This would not be good for the country as indicated above.

The system I've argued for worked for a significant period in the past century. It saw the growing of the economy and a shrinking of the national debt relative to GDP. This means that each president was leaving his successor a more prosperous America that placed less of a burden on future generations.

You are going to have to define "significant period". In looking at the debt data for the last century the national debt grew in 46 of the years. And the longest run of the debt reducing has never exceeded four years

Your system is individually rewarding, but as the past 30 years has shown its a disaster for the country. The economy has grown slower than the national debt and each president since (Republican or Democrat) left his successor with a greater burden for future generations. The tax rates were so low in fact that they got raised during a Republican presidency (Bush I) in order to pay for proposed programs.

Yet in that same period of time the number of people in the "middle class" and the group above that has increased, as well as the level of income! Covering exactly 30 years from today is difficult but 30 years from 2008 is 1978. Per capita income was $6,455 (1978 $), or $19,556 (2008) $). Per capita in 2008 $26,964. Using IRS data the people in the top 10% of earners increased by five million from 1986 to 2006. Those in the top 25% group minus the top 10% grew by three million. Miniumum income for the 10% started at $48,656 and grew to $108,904. The top 25% (minus the top 10%) minimum income rose from $32,242 to $64,702. So not only did the income rise but the number of people in each group also rose, significantly!

I think communism is a terrible system that is incredibly oppressive and doesn't work. The extreme political left is a disaster. Similarly various nationalist systems showed that the extreme political right is a disaster.

The question is not which tax rate on the top bracket is best: 0% or 100%.


But rather, what selection of services and taxes provides the best economic and social outcomes for the country.

That is a direct plank from the "Progressive" agenda. Only Government can make the social "boo-boos" better.
I believe it was the message that generated your response about hidden monies. There exist a tax strategy that has been shown capable of returning all of that "hidden" money to the banks inside the country. As well as bringing back the companies that are now offshore as well. Not only that but will influence foreign companies to locate their operations here. It also will increase the tax base, by favoring no one!

The Mellon study sounds interesting do you have a link to it?

While there is an abundance of anecdotal evidence for money going underground due to high taxes. The fact is much of it does not. For every U2 or Oprah there are tons of people like Bill Gates that actually pay their taxes, and place much of their investments in the country. Furthermore, there is a lot of business in the country that is fixed. It is difficult to provide a local service in the US from a business operated and taxed in the Netherlands for instance. What would be nice is if instead of providing anecdotes for your claim you could provide figures from studies showing:

(i) total investment by Americans in the US economy.
(ii) total investment by Americans in other economies.

and possibly also
(iii) total worldwide investment.
(iv) total investment in the American economy.

Without these figures we end up in a situation where one side points to one anecdote (the people getting fed up and leaving or working around the system), while the other side claims that those people are few and far between, and in many cases the effects on investment are negligible.

Getting hard figures for this kind of data is next to impossible but there are those that try to figure it out!
"Data on the value of wealth held offshore is hard to come by since neither governments nor the international financial institutions seems either able or willing to research the global picture.
The Bank for International Settlements (BIS)1, an institution controlled by banks, records bank deposits by country. According to their estimates, in June 2004 offshore bank deposits totaled US$2.7 trillion offshore out of $14.4
trillion total bank deposits. This means that approximately one-fifth of all deposits are held offshore2. However, this figure relates solely to cash. It
excludes all other financial assets such as stocks, shares and bonds, and the value of tangible assets such as real estate, gold and even yachts held
offshore as well as shares in private companies. These assets are typically controlled through offshore companies, foundations and trusts, the latter not even being registered let alone required to furnish annual statements of account. The value of these assets is therefore unknown and harder to determine.
In 1998, Merrill Lynch / Cap Gemini’s ‘World Wealth Report’ estimated that one third of the wealth of the world’s high net-worth individuals (HNWIs as banks refer to them) is held offshore. According to their most recent wealth report, the value of assets held by HNWIs with liquid financial assets of $1 million or more was $27.2 trillion in 2002/3, of which $8.5 trillion (31%) was held offshore. This figure is increasing by approximately $600 billion annually, which brings the current figure to about $9.7 trillion."
There is more but in summary;
Summary
Our research suggests that:
Ø approximately US$11.5 trillion of assets are held offshore by high net-worth individuals;
Ø the annual income that these assets might earn amounts to US$860 billion annually;
Ø the tax not paid as a result of these funds being held offshore might exceed US$255 billion each year.
http://www.taxjustice.net/cms/upload...f_Offshore.pdf