- "We support the Biden Administration’s focus on making bold investments in American infrastructure. Both Democrats and Republicans have supported infrastructure in the past, and it’s the right time to work together to make this happen. We recognize this investment will require concessions from all sides—both on the specifics of what’s included as well as how it gets paid for (we’re supportive of a rise in the corporate tax rate). We look forward to Congress and the Administration coming together to find the right, balanced solution that maintains or enhances U.S. competitiveness."
I can get on board with that. There is always room for improvement, and we should be aware of the status quo:
To this day, I have no idea how Politifact rated Romney's statement as "true". The statement in the title of the article, "Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax," is true in the strictest possible definition of "true", but that's not what Romney said. He said: The pull quote that they based their rating on was in the middle of that rant. The trueness of the statement that should be rated is this one: "The 47% of people who pay no income tax vote 100% Democratic." And that is ridiculous on its face. I'd be surprised if it were even 60/40. Wonder why the GOP only can resonate with morons these days. It doesn't matter one whit whether one pulled quote, completely decontextualized of its intended meaning, is technically true or not. His belief is false, and very easily proven so. I know that's not the point you were making, but unless and until we decide to look objectively at who pays what and why, there's no good way to decide if there's a better way to operate. EDIT: I'll bet a significant number of people in that room pay no income tax, since they probably make their money off of capital gains and not much else."There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what," Romney said in the video. "All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what.
"And I mean the president starts out with 48, 49 percent … he starts off with a huge number," Romney continued. "These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn’t connect. So he’ll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean, that’s what they sell every four years. And so my job is is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."
They've gone far enough to the authoritarian side that they're hitting what these studies reference. This snippet from one says it best: Indeed, the empirical literature reveals negative relations between cognitive abilities and right-wing social-cultural attitudes, including right-wing authoritarian (e.g., Keiller, 2010; McCourt et al., 1999), socially conservative (e.g., Stankov, 2009; Van Hiel et al., 2010), and religious attitudes (e.g., Zuckerman, Silberman, & Hall, 2013).Wonder why the GOP only can resonate with morons these days
Right-wing ideologies offer well-structured and ordered views about society that preserve traditional societal conventions and norms (e.g., Jost, Glaser, Kruglanski, & Sulloway, 2003). Such ideological belief systems are particularly attractive to individuals who are strongly motivated to avoid uncertainty and ambiguity in preference for simplicity and predictability (Jost et al., 2003; Roets & Van Hiel, 2011). Theoretically, individuals with lower mental abilities should be attracted by right-wing social-cultural ideologies because they minimize complexity and increase perceived control (Heaven, Ciarrochi, & Leeson, 2011; Stankov, 2009). Conversely, individuals with greater cognitive skills are better positioned to understand changing and dynamic societal contexts, which should facilitate open-minded, relatively left-leaning attitudes (Deary et al., 2008a; Heaven et al., 2011; McCourt, Bouchard, Lykken, Tellegen, & Keyes, 1999). Lower cognitive abilities therefore draw people to strategies and ideologies that emphasize what is presently known and considered acceptable to make sense and impose order over their environment. Resistance to social change and the preservation of the status quo regarding societal traditions—key principles underpinning right-wing social-cultural ideologies—should be particularly appealing to those wishing to avoid uncertainty and threat.
The "48, 49 percent" that supports President Barack Obama are "people who pay no income tax." "It's tricky to compare taxpaying status with presidential preferences, but there are enough data points that we can poke some significant holes in Romney’s argument." Agreed, it's a very selective fact they decided to check, and The Washington Post has argued that the number 47 has been eroding over the years. But I was surprised that the number was that high, even with all the qualifications. Milton Friedman's negative income tax proposal, sort of implemented in the EITC, probably wasn't a terrible idea.
It probably wasn't a terrible idea, but the EITC isn't a full implementation of it. I don't recall the details, but I don't think MF proposed that you had to make any money to qualify for the negative tax, so it operated more like a basic income guarantee. The EITC requires a minimum level of income to qualify, which to me lessens its impact. I think a good place to start with overhauling the tax code is to implement a negative income tax and to redefine earnings as income, whatever the source. Of the poor people who don't qualify for income tax payment, all of them who earn a single dollar pay a hefty payroll tax, which I think is another place that could use reform, but that's a whole other ballgame.
The minimum income to qualify for EITC is $1, and self-employment such as selling on eBay qualifies, so the main hurdles to overcome are awareness of the program and filing a return, similar to the negative income tax. Interesting points in the article: "In 1969, Richard Nixon proposed the Family Assistance Plan, which included a guaranteed minimum income in the form of a negative income tax." (rejected by the Senate, eventually enacted in 1975) "In 1993, President Clinton tripled the EITC. Today, the EITC is one of the largest anti-poverty tools in the United States." "Most income measures, including the poverty rate, do not account for the credit." With one child and parent filing singly or as head of household: • Tax credit equals $0.34 for each dollar of earned income for income up to $10,540. • For income between $10,540 and $19,330, the tax credit is constant at $3,584. • For income between $19,330 and $41,765, the tax credit decreases by $0.1598 for each dollar earned over $19,330. • For income over $41,765, the tax credit is zero. "The IRS estimates that about 20 percent of eligible taxpayers do not claim $7.3 billion of Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) each tax year."
At a cost of $56 billion in 2013, the EITC is the third-largest social welfare program in the United States after Medicaid ($275 billion federal and $127 billion state expenditures) and food stamps ($78 billion). Almost 27 million American households received more than $56 billion in payments through the EITC in 2010. These EITC dollars had a significant impact on the lives and communities of the nation's lowest-paid working people largely repaying any payroll taxes they may have paid. The EITC is one of the most effective social welfare programs in the United States. The Census Bureau, using an alternative calculation of poverty, found that EITC lifted 5.4 million above the poverty line in 2010.
Due to its structure, the EITC is effective at targeting assistance to low-income families in the bottom two quintiles—0–40% of households. By contrast, only 30% of minimum wage workers live in families near or below the federal poverty line, as most are teenagers, young adults, students, or spouses supplementing their studies or family income. Opponents of the minimum wage argue that it is a less efficient means to help the poor than adjusting the EITC.
I haven't achieved it yet, but it is my goal to pay no income tax. Rather than spending more on myself like Amazon does, I would like to reach a point of donating so much that they don't tax what is left. I feel like this way I get to choose what aspects of society I contribute to, rather than unwillingly paying for wars I don't believe in and funding other countries' nuclear programs.
"You should build roads for our delivery vans and electric grids so we can electrify." Does Amazon support (vocally, not financially) social programs? Seems like it's in their interest so they can keep driving labor costs down with government picking up the slack.
Amazon "vocally" supports Amazon Smile, a "sure we give to charity which charity do you want" program that is marketed 100% to Amazon shoppers as look - don't feel bad for shopping at Amazon, we give half a percent cash back to the charity of your choice BUY MORE. This means that Amazon gave out $215m to charities... over seven years. Meanwhile, Amazon's sales revenue last year was $386b, and $1.48 trillion since 2013... ...putting Amazon's "vocal" charitable giving at 0.0000145%. But then, you asked about "social programs". As an organization, they gave $30k to the DCCC. It's been pointed out that they pay $15 an hour, but it's also been pointed out that they do this because Bernie Sanders made a scene. Back when The Everything Store wasn't called a hagiography of Jeff Bezos, you'd hear commentary along the lines of Amazon toeing the law, but also using every advantage provided by their position to the fullest extension of the law. Jeff Bezos has vocally called for patent reform, but has also said that he'll utilize every loophole in patent law as it exists. It's a very Chicago School argument - Milton Friedman said in as many words that if people actually cared about the environment, they'd make it harder to pollute and the fact that our patchwork of laws makes it super easy is a sign that Rational Economic Man wants to drink PCBs. So realistically, the way to get more money out of magacorps like Amazon is to tax the shit out of megacorps. And then make it illegal to offshore their profits through clever tax strategy. Which, I mean, makes sense. It's been pointed out for 50 years that any publicly traded corporation has an obligation to its shareholders to behave in the most sociopathically profit-seeking manner possible. Don't want sociopathic corporations? Make them unprofitable.
They are replacing all of their gas trucks with Rivian custom-designed electric vehicles next year. Which makes me happy because I want a Rivian SO GODDAMN BAD. And Amazon has a LOT of ICE-powered vehicles I'd like to see off the road. And it will create the demand for electrical infrastructure that will drive our infrastructure forward into the 20th century. And Amazon can spend a billion dollars on something and not even blink. There is value to a colossal megalith of a company going all-in on something to drive markets to supporting this sea change.
I'm glad I read the comments before replying, and I'm struggling to come up with a really good answer. I think it might be a chicken/egg thing. Because of benefits, workers are able to get by with lower wages, and because workers can get by with lower wages, employers are happy to pay less. The more I think about it the more it becomes using wages as a basic minium income. McDonald's makes use of cheap labor because the labor is cheap. The workers want to work. I did fast food in high school and it's terrible. Nobody would do that just because. It's work of last resort. Maybe the question becomes "should labor be cheap?" Does society answer that or employers? Probably both should.
Heh, I was going to suggest responding before reading the comments, but I didn't want to be bossy. This sounds very reasonable to me, but I think it's the wrong way of thinking. The question is not what workers are able to do (what is financially possible), it is what workers actually do (how they respond to their incentives in different situations). Suppose you unexpectedly inherit an annuity equal to half your salary. Financially, you are now able to have the same lifestyle even if your employer cuts pay by 50% the same day. But I doubt you would be okay with that! In practice, what happens is that the inheritance makes you more financially comfortable, so you are less inclined to work for money (ignoring factors like prestige or job satisfaction). If the inheritance were 100% of your salary, you might even consider retiring early. New outside income tends to make workers less willing to work for money, so if employers want to retain staff they would have to increase compensation, or at least not reduce it. As Caplan expressed it, "higher unemployment benefits make it easier to not apply for a job at Walmart." There are plenty of wealthy retirees who can get by with no wages, and employers would be happy to pay them nothing to work as volunteers, but in practice people only agree to work when they consider it better than any alternative, including enjoying more leisure.Because of benefits, workers are able to get by with lower wages
because workers can get by with lower wages, employers are happy to pay less.