“We know that leftists mistake their politics for virtue. They think that voting for Democrats somehow makes them good people, and that they are therefore justified in treating anyone who disagrees with them like trash.” – Andrew Klavan
Klavan is a witty and succinct fellow. I liked that one enough to put it in my blog’s rotation of quotes just below the header. It also speaks to something I’ve been chewing on the last few days.
I’m sure I’m not the first person to notice this, but I’m building the view that there are fairly consistent and predictable differences in how conservatives address liberals, and vice versa, when it comes to our political disagreements. Of course, I’m looking at this through my own lens, and I’m trying to take that into account. (I’ll also say toss out the true red meat agitators on both sides; they’re not who I’m talking about today. I mean regular, on-the-ground folks.) OK, is that disclaimed enough? Here goes.
I think conservatives are more likely to view liberalism as a result of ignorance or misinformation, whereas liberals are more likely to view conservatism as a failing of character.
Despite overheated rhetoric to the contrary from some quarters, I really don’t believe the average, intelligent, walking-around liberal is a socialist. (You don’t either, really.) Rather, I think such a person, though perhaps motivated by admirable traits (concern for the poor, for example), concludes badly when deciding how such traits should be (even can be) reflected in society. Too, I often perceive that such a person may suffer from an insulated world view, aided greatly by the ease of self-selecting ideas. It’s dangerous to receive limited points of view in media you select, but it’s even more dangerous to receive limited points of view while believing you are receiving a broader cross-section of ideas.
Of course, conversationally, this is a dangerous slog across a mine field. It’s deliberate going, because one slip and you sound like you’re patting them on the head and saying “poor baby.” Still, some of best friends are liberals (ha, ha! no, really), and there are intelligent discussions to be had here. I know, because I’ve had them.
Conversely, for far too many liberals, conservatives think the way they think because they are bad people. Overstated? Is it really?
- I oppose tax increases on high earners because I believe the tax code is already dangerously progressive. The facts are out there for anyone to consume: the rich are just about the only people paying any income tax at all. But, no. See, conservatives really oppose tax increases on high earners because conservatives are greedy and heartless.
- Almost all acts of terror are committed by Muslims. That’s something we ought to examine seriously and sustainedly. But, no. See, conservatives think all Muslims are terrorists.
- I oppose Mexicans coming across our southern border illegally. But, no. See, conservatives really oppose Mexicans coming across our southern border illegally.
See how this works? It doesn’t matter how robustly I can argue for or against something with the facts. It’s finding a supposed greedy or prejudiced angle that really explains my views. Why is that? Well, because I’m a conservative. I’m probably clinging to guns, or religion, or antipathy toward people who are not like me. Poor baby. (pat pat pat)
Pay attention as you go about your daily activities. Pay attention to what a conservative politician says about a liberal one, and vice versa. See what you find.
You might also like:
- Klavan, perceived virtue, assumption, and manners
So NHFalcon is largely responsible for turning me on to Andrew Klavan. Thanks, man. Klavan has a num… - Sorry, liberals; Fox News isn’t going anywhere
I haven’t paid a lot of attention to the News of the World scandal. (Actually, at first I was confus… - Conservatives, liberals, and match.com
I was alerted to (tip of the propeller beanie to National Review) a fascinating article on match.com… - Political philosophy by numbers
I know someone who identifies herself as a staunch liberal. In practice, that generally translates t… - Obama has pulse at second debate
Doubtless Obama had a better outing last night than at the first debate, but as he was nearly comato…
Liberalism in a young person is a lack of maturity, and for the most part, I can excuse it. It’s irritating, but I figure they’ll outgrow it. Liberalism in an older person is a lack of character. They failed to grow out of that “I’ll save the world” mentality and blame everyone else for it.
Not that conservatism doesn’t have its failings – it does, and I well admit it. But I can live with that, based as it is generally in philosophical interpretation.
Look at how contentious issues are generally settled: Conservatives hold intense negotiations. Liberals yell, scream, and set things on fire.
Just my $.02.
Hi Bo, before I comment on your statement about income tax, let me genuinely appreciate your awareness — that many people consider a set of facts in the manner that most flatters their pre-existing opinion. Cultivating this awareness is necessary, I think, for sensing and countering the same tendency in ourselves.
Your observation about tax policy seems true: “the rich are about the only people paying any income tax at all.” A quick Google search shows multiple sources reporting that the wealthiest 10% pay about 70% of the US Federal Income Tax.
However, this perspective only considers income tax, and ignores the actual tax burden on each class of taxpayer as a portion of their income. When you take into account the other forms of tax, and their effects on each class of earners, I think you’ll find that the poorest among us pay a similarly significant share of their declared income to sales tax, payroll tax, gas tax, etc. And we can only speculate at how the wealthy use ample resources to legally (and sometimes illegally) organize their assets and income to minimize their tax burden.
In 2010, the top 1% paid 30.0% of their income in various taxes, while the other 99% paid 27.9%. When you consider all taxes (not just income), it’s clear that our system is not dangerously progressive. On the contrary, the collective impact of these taxes has contributed to the largest wealth inequality in our country since The Great Depression.
sources:
http://www.google.com/search?q=top+10%25+tax+paid
http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxday2011.pdf
http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4
Roderickm, thank you for your kind words, and welcome.
I guess I’d look at this data as just another avenue for tax reform. It’s more illustration that it’d be a real eye-opener to get an explicit bill from every taxing organization. Let’s start crossing taxes off, not adding them.
While I appreciate your point, what is it about it that makes the progressive income tax reasonable? You’re not talking about a coherent system, where one piece is aware of another. You’re talking about multiple enforcements from multiple agencies, all of which produce a combined tax liability. That it may get within a few percentage points between a rich person and a poor person (I haven’t looked at your link, but am accepting your claim for the discussion’s purpose) is coincidence, more than anything else. That’s not a coordinated result. It’s an accident.
Most importantly, I believe it is unreasonable and counterproductive to punish achievement (which, as I’ve claimed elsewhere, tends to be what produces material wealth). I really don’t think it’s in anyone’s interest for the government to incentivize mediocrity.
The various taxing agencies don’t seem coordinated, do they? And yet the total tax burden across all incomes is much more evenly distributed than suggested by considering income tax alone.
I understand the idea that you get less of things that are taxed, as suggested by your “punish achievement” language. In a narrow sense, progressive taxes “punish” those that earn more. But I also see it as “punishing” the creators of the wealth gap. At some point, the rich have Enough. Enough for themselves, for their children, and for their children’s children. Meanwhile, the poorest among us have less and less. Lest anyone think I’m pining for some socialist redistribution, take note that Warren Buffett agrees: the rich should pay more.
From our comfortable positions somewhere toward wealthy end of the scale (please forgive my assumptions, but you do have your own domain name), we can toss around percentages and generalizations. But the law of small numbers applies here, too. Taking twenty or thirty percent from a billionaire’s annual income still allows obscene sums to be compounded annually… while the same portion paid in tax from a $20,000 wage would have an enormous impact.
I respectfully disagree that progressively raising tax rates would “incentivize mediocrity.” At the high end of the income scale, most income is from investments, not from a 9-to-5 job. And no billionaire is going to say, “y’know, since the government is just going to take my gains anyway, I’ll just skip investing today.” Sure, those that earn more would pay more. But they’d still earn more. And that’s the real incentive.
What I’m getting at pointing out the lack of coordination is that any “fairness” in even distribution you perceive is accidental, so how can it reasonably form any philosophical basis for further regulation? It’s a set of circumstances that happen to, at this moment, paint a picture you want; not a designed result.
“At some point, the rich have Enough.” It is not government’s business to say so at all, much less use such a notion as a legislative basis. You can’t say this, apparently seriously, and then in the next breath claim not to be a socialist.
If you’re advocating more coordination re: taxation, I agree. However, if we try to wait for such to improve our situation, we’ll be waiting quite some time. We must work with what we have, which is a series of layered taxes from various layers of government: federal, state, local, etc.
Any advocation of taxes can be labeled as socialism, I suppose. Taxes are literally a command redistribution of money by a centralized government. That doesn’t sound so democratic, does it? And yes, the government is in the business of saying who pays what: that’s the tax code. I think it’s unproductive to a conversation to toss around provocative labels like socialism, but then I’m a guest here.
At absurd levels, I think everyone would agree that “the rich have Enough.” Is it sustainable for one person to hold a third of the country’s wealth? For 1,000 people? What if just 0.1% of the country held such concentrated riches? The threshold of concern may vary, but many would agree we’re approaching a hazardous separation between the wealthy and everyone else. Such dichotomy brings trouble: financial disaster and political revolution have been seen in such situations, here in the US and abroad.
Let me put it this way. I believe it is legitimate for government to right a wrong, or more specifically craft law that enables its people to right a wrong, when the wrong is a result of a person’s rights being violated. But to charge government with enforcing your notion, or indeed any notion, of “fairness” by redistributing wealth with the tax code is madness. When is it “enough”? How do we know when we get there? Should we put a maximum annual income into law? A maximum net worth? What if your “enough” isn’t someone else’s “enough”?
Any system of taxation that is as fair as we can make it cannot concern itself with “enough” net worth or “enough” income. There will always be inequality, and it is folly for government to attempt to correct this perceived wrong. You ever consider why the phrase was/is “pursuit of happiness,” and not simply “happiness”? What does history tell us about governmental efforts to enforce equality?
Now if you are concerned about the degree of wealth inequality in the United States, perhaps there are rights arguments to be made there. I don’t know. But essentially, all you’ve really said is the rich have a whole bunch of money, and that is itself enough cause to take it away from them disproportionately.
I can’t find a reasonable path through that.
Please note that I haven’t used the term “fair.” Aside from this word calling to mind advocates of a sales/consumption tax, it hardly has any objective meaning. Neither have I suggested a cap on income, or on net worth. I have pointed out that a few in our society have an overabundance, while a large and growing segment have very little. And I believe this divergent condition puts us on a path toward dire consequences.
Our government has been in the tax business for hundreds of years. It is not (just) an economic referee that steps in when a play is fouled. It is not (just) an arbiter of justice when someone’s rights are violated. Sometimes the government’s policies do the fouling. Sometimes the government’s actions cause or contribute to the trampling of rights. The condition we have today was caused in part by our government’s tax policies.
Tax is by definition a collection and redistribution of wealth. Again, I haven’t suggested that the current tax code is — or should be — “fair” by any particular definition, but I would agree that the current tax code is madness. It should be simplified and improved, and I believe that means a more progressive taxation, whether by income or property or both.
Reducing my argument to an absurd essence does not contribute to the discussion. Yes, a progressive tax is disproportionate in that it would charge wealthier citizens a greater proportion than poorer citizens. However, our current system is also disproportionate in that its impact on taxpayers is heaviest on the poor and lightest on the wealthy. Which is a more meaningful measure? To whom much is given, much is expected.
A chart in last Sunday’s NYTimes reminded me to follow up on your blog. I’ll share it here in the hope that it better illustrates the effects of the past 30 years’ policies: http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/09/04/opinion/04reich-graphic.html?ref=sunday
Roderickm, that you are ceaselessly polite does not change that you are talking in circles and making very little sense, and if in your book that’s rude for me to say so, then I apologize. It is not necessary for me to “(reduce) (your) argument to an absurd essence.” You do that yourself.
“To whom much is given, much is expected,” which you are apparently saying with a straight face, underscores this absurdity. Pray how is the government not confiscating what someone has earned “giving”? Are you going to whip “the wealthiest among us have won life’s lottery” on me next?
I repeat: there will always be inequality, and it is folly for government to attempt to correct this perceived wrong. You ever consider why the phrase was/is “pursuit of happiness,” and not simply “happiness”? What does history tell us about governmental efforts to enforce equality?
I repeat: all you’ve really said is the rich have a whole bunch of money, and that is itself enough cause to take it away from them disproportionately.
I’m done. If you would like the last word, it is yours.
Thanks, Bo. I respect that I’m in your house here. And I hope that presenting my dissent thoughtfully and respectfully gives it some chance to be considered on its merits. I’m sorry that you feel I’m talking in circles or not making sense, but I appreciate you graciously accommodating and answering my comments here. I’ll answer you, and then attempt to summarize my position.
Yes, I do believe that many of us have won “life’s lottery.” Warren Buffett’s biography presents it better than I could:
I describe your reduction of my position absurd because riches are not earned by self-made men in a vacuum. A couple of examples:
Our government created policies that allow hedge funds to operate with astounding opacity, while its investors enjoy very low tax rates on the gains. You may call this “earning,” but it often seems like quid pro quo “gifts” between policymakers and some investment funds.
Let’s examine the massive subsidies our government gives to some industries. Over $72 BILLION in government subsidies and incentives to the oil and gas industry, who earn record profits and massive windfalls. The government is not an independent third party that appears only on tax day. The government sets the stage, creating the policies and incentives that make such riches possible. So yes, to whom much is given, much is expected.
In summary, I believe our government has created a set of conditions that encourages wealth to be increasingly concentrated by relatively few citizens. I believe this is hazardous because it makes the poor more reliant on government to claw their way toward some financial security; it allows the wealthy few to manipulate markets to their benefit; it concentrates political influence and in turn fosters corruption; it creates a have vs have-not society; and it invites the many to revolt against the few. There are probably many more concerns over the effects of this wealth gap, that’s just off the top of my head. (I earnestly believe that at increasingly extreme divergence, most other people would agree. Can we call ourselves a democracy if we allow a handful of the wealthiest families to buy whatever politician and policy they wish?)
I believe there are numerous policies at many levels of government that have created this situation. While I would agree in an idealistic sense that it would be better to reduce governmental control, I do not think that wishing for a simpler time or smaller government is a realistic approach when our economy expects endless expansion. Huge entitlement programs with entrenched interests do not go silently into the night. Could you imagine the opposition to eliminating social security, or to forcing transparency on hedge funds, or to shifting any random government subsidy away from its beneficiaries? I guess we should add healthcare to the list of calcifying entitlements. These develop complicated interrelationships that would need to be unwound carefully.
I believe a simpler and more direct solution is to use tax policy as a counterbalance to the unquestioned wealth gap. My advocacy for more progressive tax is simply that. It is not a call for socialism, though I think many conservatives are behaving as “temporarily embarrassed millionaires,” as John Steinbeck wrote. It is not a call for a cap on net worth or on earnings, though I do believe the billionth dollar a citizen earns should be much more heavily taxed than the ten-thousandth dollar. It is is not a call for equality in earnings, but for a more equitable impact of taxation. A more progressive tax would slow or stop the divergence of wealth and its hazardous consequences. Thank you.
Usenet lives! Albeit with much politer Bob’s.
Heh! I still check on one of the Bobs once in a while. To tack so violently left so late in life is rather unusual.