The rich should get more votes and Taxes will lead to 'economic extinction' of the 1%

[theeedude]

This guy is a gift that keeps on giving. He's a perfect combination of corporatist ethics and being completely out of touch with the real world. It's pretty clear he is not used to anyone questioning his "wisdom."

 

[glenn1]

That's a pretty awful idea, since nothing large-scale would ever get built without eminent domain, and the benefits of things like public transportation don't accrue just to the person collecting the fees for it. If you build a subway system connecting a city, the whole city's economy benefits substantially - the rich most of all, but everyone, including the poor. It only makes sense to pay for it with tax dollars from everyone. That's also why it's stupid to bash public transit for not being 'profitable' in terms of the fees it collects, so long as the economic benefit of having the system running offsets the net cost of running it. Neither highways nor Amtrak run a profit, but it's silly to expect them to.

Our public schools are actually fine if you look at the median rather than the average. We have abysmal schools in the poorest areas, but the majority of our schools are okay. Meanwhile, we have unquestionably the best universities in the world, many of which are public as well, and even the private ones depend in large part upon research funding from the NSF, DOD, DOE, and public-private partnerships sponsored by the state. People aren't offshoring to avoid our college graduates, they're offshoring to avoid paying the going rate for American college graduates in the US, which is rational if still harmful. If all you need are 'well-educated' high school graduates, then sure, other places are better, but intellectual property and industrial technology are our biggest exports by far in this country, and those require more than a high school education in most cases.

The vast majority of infrastructure doesn't benefit the rich whatsoever unless they live exactly where the infrastructure is being built. Building or replacing a bridge in the inner city ghetto does basically nothing to help a rich person, even if it's in their city much less some flyover country place 1000 miles away. Upgrading the sewer system in some other city doesn't benefit the rich unless the rich person is a builder and got the contract.

If you have some economic study which shows the actual dollar amounts of excess economic value that the rich receive above and beyond any typical citizen, then please show them otherwise your assertion is just an opinion and a statement supported only by your political belief system.

As for "large scale projects," the ones the progressive left wants to build are complete economic boondoggles like California high-speed rail between Fresno and Bakersfield which are completely wasteful for rich and poor alike.

 

[fleshconsumed]

The vast majority of infrastructure doesn't benefit the rich whatsoever unless they live exactly where the infrastructure is being built. Building or replacing a bridge in the inner city ghetto does basically nothing to help a rich person, even if it's in their city much less some flyover country place 1000 miles away. Upgrading the sewer system in some other city doesn't benefit the rich unless the rich person is a builder and got the contract.

Yes it does benefit the wealthy which is what berzerker was trying to tell you. If there are no roads or bridges to inner city, the wealthy has no way to sell that person goods and make a profit off of it. Similarly no sewer leads to deteriorating health conditions, deceases ran rampant, remember black death in the 16th century? Why do you think sewer systems came around? Without sewers more people will die as a result of decease and infection and those who do survive will have less disposable income to spend on the goods produced by the wealthy person. So yes, the wealthy absolutely do benefit from the public infrastructure.

If you have some economic study which shows the actual dollar amounts of excess economic value that the rich receive above and beyond any typical citizen, then please show them otherwise your assertion is just an opinion and a statement supported only by your political belief system.

Unfortunately, it is hard to put a dollar figure on how much wealthy person vs common folk benefit from public infrastructure. However, historically speaking as a civilization we've made our biggest progress since we 1) started division of labor and 2) started trading instead of making everything ourselves. The trading is impossible without good infrastructure, otherwise we'd still be stuck in the stone age. Therefore it is beneficial to everybody including the wealthy who made obscene amounts of money on trade. East India Company is one of the earliest examples of what became possible with trade. Plus, wealthy being wealthy, I would have to presume that the system as a whole, including public infrastructure works for them.

 

[glenn1]

Yes it does benefit the wealthy which is what berzerker was trying to tell you. If there are no roads or bridges to inner city, the wealthy has no way to sell that person goods and make a profit off of it. Similarly no sewer leads to deteriorating health conditions, deceases ran rampant, remember black death in the 16th century? Why do you think sewer systems came around? Without sewers more people will die as a result of decease and infection and those who do survive will have less disposable income to spend on the goods produced by the wealthy person. So yes, the wealthy absolutely do benefit from the public infrastructure.

LOL, how much money do you think the rich make by selling goods to inner city poor? Do you honestly think it's "lack of infrastructure" which keeps businesses out of the inner city? If so, how is it that many inner city residents need to travel to supermarkets to buy groceries since there are none where they live? Are the poor travelling on non-existent roads and bridges, or are those byways only completely unusable by grocery store trucks? If anything, the rich probably wish there was *less* infrastructure in inner cities, since that allows undesirables to travel to richer neighborhoods and engage in petty crime.

Unfortunately, it is hard to put a dollar figure on how much wealthy person vs common folk benefit from public infrastructure. However, historically speaking as a civilization we've made our biggest progress since we 1) started division of labor and 2) started trading instead of making everything ourselves. The trading is impossible without good infrastructure, otherwise we'd still be stuck in the stone age. Therefore it is beneficial to everybody including the wealthy who made obscene amounts of money on trade. East India Company is one of the earliest examples of what became possible with trade. Plus, wealthy being wealthy, I would have to presume that the system as a whole, including public infrastructure works for them.

So in other words, you're just repeating your unsupported beliefs. Fortunately, here's an (admittedly unscientific) article which tries to quantify exactly how much benefit the rich do get from government spending. Even its nakedly partisan arguments are 1000x better than your pure opinion - hell, it's a case study in intellectual rigor compared to your statements.

http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2007/12/who-benefits-fr.html

 

[Matt1970]

I sit in rooms with people like this on a fairly regular basis. There is perhaps nothing that infuriates me more than old out of touch wealthy people expounding on how they are exploited by the rest of the country while they complain that their 3rd summer house renovation is over budget by 2M or that their jet needs new engines.

The only thing that keeps me from ripping them a dozen new assholes is the knowledge that they'll all be dead within a decade or two. Simile, nod, and be first in line to drop a shovel full of dirt onto their coffin.

You would be the rare exception. The rest of us only hear the 1% have this, the 1% have that, they are my sworn enemy, revolution time. And lets not forget how many time the President used the term inequality.

 

[K1052]

You would be the rare exception. The rest of us only hear the 1% have this, the 1% have that, they are my sworn enemy, revolution time. And lets not forget how many time the President used the term inequality.

I hear both sides.

There is a growing concern even among the wealthy that the accelerating wealth inequality in the US is not good a good thing (for them and society as a whole) long term. The elderly ones are more often prone to bouts of insane paranoia and or tone def arrogance like those so beautifully showcased recently by people like Tom Perkins and Sam Zell. Most of those folks have handlers or offspring to help keep such opinions private or at least somewhat veiled.

The fact that wealth inequality has grown is indisputable. The quandary most reasonable people are in are the ethical considerations and practical options for dealing with it inside our framework. The extreme positions staked out buy elements of both parties from the jail the rich crowd on the left to the rich people are more deserving crowd on the right are rhetorical nose that advances nothing.

 

[z1ggy]

Did you pay more than $600,000 in taxes in 2003?

I didnt think so, so stop bitching about it when other people pay 20X more than you do in taxes.

LOL It's % based. Earning $60k, someobody who's single, claiming just themselves with no itemized deductions (& assuming no IRA/401k contribution) would pay roughly $8-9k in federal taxes. That's about 1/7th their income.

If Kerry's effective tax rate was ~11%, he was paying 1/10th of his earned income.

So you tell me... Who's actually paying more?

 

[CitizenKain]

And lets not forget how many time the President used the term inequality.

And this is wrong because...?

 

[fleshconsumed]

LOL, how much money do you think the rich make by selling goods to inner city poor? Do you honestly think it's "lack of infrastructure" which keeps businesses out of the inner city? If so, how is it that many inner city residents need to travel to supermarkets to buy groceries since there are none where they live? Are the poor travelling on non-existent roads and bridges, or are those byways only completely unusable by grocery store trucks? If anything, the rich probably wish there was *less* infrastructure in inner cities, since that allows undesirables to travel to richer neighborhoods and engage in petty crime.

How do you think walmart family made their fortune? By selling stuff to poor people in the inner cities who cannot afford anything else. What about McD? What about BNSF railroad that's raking in all the cash lately? How does it make its money? Transporting goods. Like I said, the modern society as we know exists primarily thanks to division of labor and trade, neither of which is possible without infrastructure. I wish you'd get these fundamental concepts through your head instead of throwing petty insults...

 

[Matt1970]

And this is wrong because...?

Because life isn't fair and it's not the job of the government to make it fair. Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness, not the guarantee of it. The rich didn't get rich by taking anything from me.

 

[glenn1]

How do you think walmart family made their fortune? By selling stuff to poor people in the inner cities who cannot afford anything else. What about McD? What about BNSF railroad that's raking in all the cash lately? How does it make its money? Transporting goods. Like I said, the modern society as we know exists primarily thanks to division of labor and trade, neither of which is possible without infrastructure. I wish yougovernmentese fundamental concepts through head instead of throwing petty insults...

Oh yeah, all those Wal-Marts that don't exist in the inner cities is what made the Walton fortune selling to people who you admit have no money. And the inner city itself isn't a bottomless pit we throw welfare money into, it's the economic engine of the nation upon which the wealth of the rich is built. The freight railroads for the most part own the right of way for their tracks and the economic benefit is derived from the private company and their own investment in private infrastructure, not public. They create economic wealth, unlike the almost all government-owned passenger railroads which always operate at a loss and require huge taxpayer subsidies.

 

[CitizenKain]

Because life isn't fair and it's not the job of the government to make it fair. Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness, not the guarantee of it. The rich didn't get rich by taking anything from me.

Except they are and have been.

 

[BUnit1701]

So your argument is that if only we had a smaller government, than the higher voting power of the wealthy elite wouldn't give them as much extra benefits as it does right now? Arguably true, the smaller the government the less benefits they can vote their way. However, if you stop for a second and ignore the corruption that comes with the bigger government, in large part the bigger government was created to protect the poor working guy from the abuses of the land/business owners who had all the power and poor working guy had none.

In the 16-18th century the government was way way smaller, and the serfs/working poor were miserable. The government created labor laws to stop child labor and to stop worker abuse, to stop the environment pollution, to mandate food and drug safety. You only need to look at coal mines about a hundred years back to see what it was like before government intervention: the horrible disregard for worker safety, the inevitable death of black lung decease, forcing miners to live on the company property and buy from the company store perpetually keeping the working guy in debt, and then the blatant murders of striking men. Read up on Ludlow Massacre . Pay attention to the demands part. Right to an 8 hour work day, proper weight checking, actually obeying safety laws, and right to shop at any store, not just the company store? Sorry, you can't have any of that. This is what it was before government stepped in to gradually stop it.

If you step back and take a look at the bigger picture this is what unabridged concentration of wealth leads to, and it doesn't matter whether the government is small or big. The only difference is how wealthy exploit the little man. The small government simply means that wealthy don't have any pesky labor laws to deal with. Big government means they can buy favorable laws. In light of the latter the "small government" slogan sounds attractive, but it ignores the reality that small government cannot protect the common man from the wealthy abuses. The proper way is not to arbitrarily cut down the government, but to reduce it to a more reasonable level while maintaining working man protection. Unfortunately I do not know how to do it, but I do know that just chopping it is not a good idea.

The problem isn't just 'big' government, the problem is centralization of power over large areas. Individual states, counties, and localities are just as capable of stopping the abuses you outline. We dont need a massively bloated national government to do these things.

 

[K1052]

The freight railroads for the most part own the right of way for their tracks and the economic benefit is derived from the private company and their own investment in private infrastructure, not public. They create economic wealth, unlike the almost all government-owned passenger railroads which always operate at a loss and require huge taxpayer subsidies.

Do you mean the railroads that were built in return for huge federal land grants or the ones that were paid to build by the mile by the government?

 

[SMOGZINN]

The only thing that keeps me from ripping them a dozen new assholes is the knowledge that they'll all be dead within a decade or two. Simile, nod, and be first in line to drop a shovel full of dirt onto their coffin.

Only if we don't come up with ways to extend their lifespan. If we do they will be able to afford those treatments and you will not. Then they will be the ones putting the dirt on your grave. It may sound silly now, but it is going to happen. Might not be in their lifespan, but it is probably not that far away.

 

[berzerker60]

Oh yeah, all those Wal-Marts that don't exist in the inner cities is what made the Walton fortune selling to people who you admit have no money. And the inner city itself isn't a bottomless pit we throw welfare money into, it's the economic engine of the nation upon which the wealth of the rich is built. The freight railroads for the most part own the right of way for their tracks and the economic benefit is derived from the private company and their own investment in private infrastructure, not public. They create economic wealth, unlike the almost all government-owned passenger railroads which always operate at a loss and require huge taxpayer subsidies.

Just FYI, it's 2014, not 1980. Inner cities aren't economic pits anymore, if they ever were, they're trendy places to live that are also economic powerhouses. Real estate prices are skyrocketing in San Francisco, DC, Oakland, Chicago, most other major cities, and redevelopment is happening all over.

Even if they were, most major infrastructure we're talking about doesn't take place there, they're designed to move things long distances. Roads, bridges (how the hell do you think most of America's bridges are in poor parts of cities, by the way? Or even a statistically recognizable amount of them?), trains, airports, internet lines, all serve the greater economy. Even poor workers who don't buy a lot work for low wages and much less vacation/perks than in other first-world countries, generating wealth for corporations.

How do you think those railroads got built? With private funds, yes, but also on public lands seized through eminent domain and sold as part of a deal with those private companies. No one's saying they're 100% a government success story, but government and private companies certainly were and are partners. Yes, the passenger lines 'lose money,' but again, so do highways. They create more economic activity by allowing people to move around for relatively cheaper.

As for the economic impact of infrastructure, let's see - I'm not going to spend a huge amount of time digging into sourcing on all these reports, but this is some basic googling:
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/03/the-second-avenue-subways-economic-impact/

Ms. Maloney presented a report indicating that the Second Avenue subway has created 16,000 jobs, generated $842 million in wages and produced $2.87 billion in economic activity (of a projected $4.347 billion in total), while the East Side Access has created 22,000 jobs, generated $1.176 billion in wages and produced $4 billion in economic activity (of a projected $12.275 billion in total).

http://www.wm.edu/as/publicpolicy/documents/prs/aed.pdf

Estimated Short-Run Effects
• In the short-run, a dollar spent on infrastructure construction produces roughly double the initial spending in ultimate economic output.
• The biggest effects of infrastructure spending occur in the manufacturing and business services sectors.
• In better economic times, spending on infrastructure construction generates a larger return. Yet even in a recession, the overall effects of initial spending still double output as they ripple through the economy.

Estimated Long-Run Effects
• Over a twenty-year period, generalized ‘public investment’ generates an accumulated $3.21 of economic activity per $1.00 spent.
• Over twenty years, investing $1.00 in highways and streets returns approximately $0.35 in tax revenue to federal and state/local governments, of which $0.23 specifically accrues at the federal level.
• Over twenty years, investing $1.00 in sewer systems and water infrastructure returns a full $2.03 in tax revenue to federal and state/local governments, of which $1.35 specifically accrues at the federal level.

Spending on public infrastructure stimulates the U.S. economy in the short-run. Investing in infrastructure goes beyond mere improvements to the quality of roads, highways, sewers, and power plants. These investments also generate significant economic returns for other portions of the U.S. economy and substantially increase ultimate tax revenue for the government.

In order to adequately fund public infrastructure, the U.S. must seek innovative new funding mechanisms that do not burden rising deficits, and likely must stimulate the private sector. Programs like public-private partnerships, individual and corporate contributions to road financing and user fee lanes are potential mechanisms through which public spending on
infrastructure can be supplemented beyond the gas tax.

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/publicroads/94spring/p94sp8.cfm

The benefits from our highway system cross all levels of society and are exhibited in several ways. The industry studies indicate that evolving management forms and logistic cost savings would not be possible without our expansive highway system. For example, a lower-cost, efficient, reliable highway network allows transportation consumers to redesign production processes and access more markets, thereby providing a wider array of goods and services at lower costs. Reductions in logistic costs will continue to offer consumers and producers extraordinary benefits. It is our hope that this research agenda will provide an overall estimate of the level and process by which these economic benefits become a reality. By improving our understanding of this linkage process, we can begin to offer more direction on how to support continued economic benefits to the economy as a whole from the transportation network. Without this increase in economic productivity, we cannot expect our standard of living to rise or even be maintained.

As for how good these are for the rich, that should be self-evident. Infrastructure is good for businesses -> growth in business profits have gone almost exclusively to the rich for the past few decades -> infrastructure is good for the rich.

 

[Incorruptible]

Except they are and have been.

Wrong unless you're talking about your scumbag obama using the Fed.

 

[CitizenKain]

Wrong unless you're talking about your scumbag obama using the Fed.

If I need the comments from a complete moron, I'll send you a PM and let you know.

 

[Incorruptible]

If I need the comments from a complete moron, I'll send you a PM and let you know.

Leftist moron doesn't like his precious obama being criticized, not surprised coming from someone like you.

 

[glenn1]

Do you mean the railroads that were built in return for huge federal land grants or the ones that were paid to build by the mile by the government?

Yeah, as if the military transport needs of fighting the Civil War had nothing to do with that. Just like Pearl Harbor had nothing to do with the feds subsidizing shipyard building in the 1940s. It's not like the "little guy" got screwed by the railroad land grants in any event since the Homestead Act was giving away federal land to individual citizens anyway.

While you're at it, why not take it back yet another layer? Do you mean the government that was built in return for land grants from British kings or the one whose own land grants to railroads were enabled via people being paid by the scalp to exterminate millions of Native Americans and seize their ancestral lands?

 

[Ken g6]

suggested that the more taxes you pay the more votes you should get.

Hm, this is an interesting catch-22, isn't it? If the rich voted themselves out of paying taxes, they'd also vote themselves out of being able to vote. Do you think they'd vote themselves into paying more taxes so they'd have more votes? It would probably destroy our democracy anyway, but it would be interesting.

 

[berzerker60]

Hm, this is an interesting catch-22, isn't it? If the rich voted themselves out of paying taxes, they'd also vote themselves out of being able to vote. Do you think they'd vote themselves into paying more taxes so they'd have more votes? It would probably destroy our democracy anyway, but it would be interesting.

Rich people's individual votes are meaningless. They're a tiny portion of the population. Their power comes from being able to fund campaigns in unlimited amounts, even down to the city elections level, and so have enormous influence on policy at every level even if they never cast a single vote.

 

[glenn1]

Just FYI, it's 2014, not 1980. Inner cities aren't economic pits anymore, if they ever were, they're trendy places to live that are also economic powerhouses. Real estate prices are skyrocketing in San Francisco, DC, Oakland, Chicago, most other major cities, and redevelopment is happening all over.

Even if they were, most major infrastructure we're talking about doesn't take place there, they're designed to move things long distances. Roads, bridges (how the hell do you think most of America's bridges are in poor parts of cities, by the way? Or even a statistically recognizable amount of them?), trains, airports, internet lines, all serve the greater economy. Even poor workers who don't buy a lot work for low wages and much less vacation/perks than in other first-world countries, generating wealth for corporations.

How do you think those railroads got built? With private funds, yes, but also on public lands seized through eminent domain and sold as part of a deal with those private companies. No one's saying they're 100% a government success story, but government and private companies certainly were and are partners. Yes, the passenger lines 'lose money,' but again, so do highways. They create more economic activity by allowing people to move around for relatively cheaper.

As for the economic impact of infrastructure, let's see - I'm not going to spend a huge amount of time digging into sourcing on all these reports, but this is some basic googling:
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/03/the-second-avenue-subways-economic-impact/
http://www.wm.edu/as/publicpolicy/documents/prs/aed.pdf
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/publicroads/94spring/p94sp8.cfm


As for how good these are for the rich, that should be self-evident. Infrastructure is good for businesses -> growth in business profits have gone almost exclusively to the rich for the past few decades -> infrastructure is good for the rich.

No one is arguing infrastructure has no value. What's not evident is that the rich benefit from it more than others, and nothing you posted changes that. Indeed, this article fairly correctly IMHO points out the super-rich don't need much if anything in the way of broad public infrastructure (even though its action proposals are somewhat silly and counter-production).

And sure, many cities are having mini-renaissances in the heart of downtown with lofts being built. And the amount of people involved is still fairly tiny (typically in the hundreds or low thousands). The Census Department (see Table 3.4 on page 26) says that total percentage of people living within 2 miles of town hall is 1.9, 3.2, and 3.6 percent of the population of MSA sized 5MM, 2.5MM, and 1MM people respectively. Even so that would in no way drive a larger demand among them for city-wide infrastructure projects. Indeed they'll probably drive out-sized infrastructure spending in their very local area of the city at the expense of poorer areas.

 

[Vic]

My dentist is a great guy, does good work and fairly successful of course, but he's more than a little outspoken about his tea partying. So one time, while I'm in the dentists chair and he's expressing his views, I interrupted to tell him that I agreed completely and would now go into business as a dentist. He said I couldn't do that and after a few more questions the reason boiled down to that it took a government license to practice dentistry. Bingo.

 

[berzerker60]

No one is arguing infrastructure has no value. What's not evident is that the rich benefit from it more than others, and nothing you posted changes that. Indeed, this article fairly correctly IMHO points out the super-rich don't need much if anything in the way of broad public infrastructure (even though its action proposals are somewhat silly and counter-production).

So what part of the following don't you agree with?

1) Infrastructure spending has economic value, generally far beyond the amount spent, as that article I quoted lays out.
2) The vast majority of economic growth - whether from infrastructure spending or other sources - has, for the past several decades, gone primarily to the very rich (see additional evidence below).
3) Therefore, the rich have the most to gain by a growing economy, and therefore the most to gain from infrastructure.

Additional stats to support proposition 2:
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3629

• Beginning in the 1970s, economic growth slowed and the income gap widened.
  • Income growth for households in the middle and lower parts of the distribution slowed sharply, while incomes at the top continued to grow strongly.
  • The concentration of income at the very top of the distribution rose to levels last seen more than 80 years ago (during the “Roaring Twenties”).
• Wealth (the value of a household’s property and financial assets net of the value of its debts) is much more highly concentrated than income, although the wealth data do not show a dramatic increase in concentration at the very top the way the income data do.